Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Given she was going out with a good friend of Kavanaugh for months it makes it scarcley believable that Kavanaugh didn't know her.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
Surely it’s only a temporary arrangement until the oft mentioned technological solutions to the NI border can be implemented? The Channel Islands have been members of the Customs Union without being members of the EU from the beginning.
While “trade deals” was a purported benefit of Brexit, I suspect FOM is much more of a red line for the public....
Come on be serious. If May agrees that the backstop applies until both the UK and the EU agree that technological solutions have been reached, we can never leave. It would be madness to agree to that before a trade negotiation.
The only person who would ever agree to that is someone who was determined to stop us leaving in the first place, Mr Robbins.
But once again we are seeing May offering concessions to the EU without having received anything in return. She really is a complete joke.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
He wasn't her "boyfriend" in a serious sense. She was asked about him during the course of the Senate hearing (it isn't a new "revelation"). The fact that she went out with him is actually evidence that he dissembled (/lied) when he said he didn't know her - and was why the reference to him ("Squi") on the July 1st calendar was important.
The big underlying story about the "mistaken identity" claims was that these were being concocted in advance of Ford's name being made public. Which implies that Kavanaugh knew who was making the allegations before her name had been revealed.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
“Low skilled immigration will fall”. So leads the BBC this morning.
And with those words May ramps up pressure on her successors to deliver?
Whilst voters on doorstep will tell politicians what to do, there’s too much immigration and so not enough homes for us and it’s killing the NHS, there’s key sectors of the economy, such as social care, struggling with unfilled vacancies, that in truth the NHS needs filled.
Gordon Browns weapon of choice for outflanking Tories on immigration was to keep repeating BJ4BW lines. If they’re naming it in 4 I can name it in 3 Tom. Like a footballer whose injections gets his knee through the next couple of games, but ultimately there is a price to be paid. He now has the political credibility of a cripple. But worse left his team weak in that position.
Who believes leaving EU gives UK government the control to easily and speedily deliver May’s explicit promise to the voters? I don’t. What I would prefer to see is advantages of leaving EU FOM and control taken back, put into honest context of what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy? I would like to see honesty from British politicians the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms! I would like to see honesty from politicians that, even when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
Who believes ramping up promises like this are electorally very dangerous if not quickly delivered, but is tactic used by likes of Brown and May at conference time to shore up their own positions at the expense of credibility of their successors?
Every poll on immigration shows it is low skilled immigration voters want cut, they are less bothered about high skilled immigration.
On FoM admittedly of course the EU allowed us to implement transition controls on free movement from the main wave of new accession countries to the EU in 2004 but Blair refused to implement them, only changing course and implementing them when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007
Damn it! I've just realised why I keep failing at job interviews. It's because I'm hardly ever emotional, never cry, nor do I boast of loving beer.
Next time.
Advice and consent isn’t a job interview
It’s a confirmation hearing not an appointment hearing
It’s vetting for suitability for a job, so Robert’s point stands. You keep comparing it to a criminal trial, with reference to the presumption of innocence. If he were to be impeached, we could have an interesting debate about that....
I’m puzzled why Republicans want to die in a ditch for this guy. Granted he is a naked partisan in a way many judges on the Fedaralist Society list aren’t, but otherwise he is deeply unimpressive as a judge, and his appointment now would look utterly horrible.
Natural justice - it’s an ethics not a legal concept
I'm aware of the concept. Your application of it in this case is idiosyncratic.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
"There’s been no evidence" is one way of looking it, I suppose. The corollary would be that Kavanaugh's bizarre performance in front of the Committee can't be evidence of his unsuitability, either.
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
Not having industries that rely on supply chains would be a red line for me. Including our very substantial car manufacturing industry. Who cares if we apply the same tariff on Peruvian guano as the EU?
The EU are currently passing legislation that restricts the import of old books.
Having a foreign power in charge of your trade policy is bonkers.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
He wasn't her "boyfriend" in a serious sense. She was asked about him during the course of the Senate hearing (it isn't a new "revelation"). The fact that she went out with him is actually evidence that he dissembled (/lied) when he said he didn't know her - and was why the reference to him ("Squi") on the July 1st calendar was important.
The big underlying story about the "mistaken identity" claims was that these were being concocted in advance of Ford's name being made public. Which implies that Kavanaugh knew who was making the allegations before her name had been revealed.
Or that they were covering for other cases of "mistaken identity.".
This is from about a week ago. The Democrats must surely be a bit disappointed not to have more leeway as we move into the final few weeks before voting:
"CBS News-YouGov House Model: Democrats 224, Republicans 211"
You need 218 seats for a majority in the House, so 224 seats would be clearly enough for Pelosi to become Speaker.
It would also be a gain of 31 seats for the Democrats on 2016 on the 193 seats they have now. 31 seats was also the gain the Democrats made in 2006 when they last took the House
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
Quite. When people say "no evidence" they mean "no corroborating evidence". And in fact, as pointed out in the excellent twitter thread referenced earlier, (https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046594628005363718) what they actually mean is "no (direct) corroborating witnesses" - because there is a mountain of corroborating evidence of various degrees (largely corroborating to the extent that in a "he said/she said" situation, it is important if there is evidence that one or other is an unreliable witness. And here the case against Kavanaugh is overwhelming)
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
Damn it! I've just realised why I keep failing at job interviews. It's because I'm hardly ever emotional, never cry, nor do I boast of loving beer.
Next time.
Advice and consent isn’t a job interview
It’s a confirmation hearing not an appointment hearing
It’s vetting for suitability for a job, so Robert’s point stands. You keep comparing it to a criminal trial, with reference to the presumption of innocence. If he were to be impeached, we could have an interesting debate about that....
I’m puzzled why Republicans want to die in a ditch for this guy. Granted he is a naked partisan in a way many judges on the Fedaralist Society list aren’t, but otherwise he is deeply unimpressive as a judge, and his appointment now would look utterly horrible.
Natural justice - it’s an ethics not a legal concept
In a sense though, the allegations (bad as they are) are now secondary to the fact that the way he behaved at his confirmation hearing strongly indicated he has neither the temperament or the intellect to be a good judge.
That on its own is a good enough reason to veto him.
That’s a better argument. Although the way he reacted is consistent with someone who has been falsely accused and then finds a bunch of two-bit politicians taking pot shots at him
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election
I doubt Boris will be standing as an MP at the next GE.
I think it is more than likely. With the Scon mps opposing him together with Ruth Davidson his chances have greatly narrowed and if he gets publically booed tomorrow from the stop Boris group he must realise he has no chance of the top job
Boris leads today's ConHome Tory members poll with an 11% lead over second placed Javid, of course he continues to have a chance.
You are like an old gramaphone record. He is a gonner
It would actually be hilarious if Boris's speech really did reveal some major PM credentials and convinced the doubters.
That is impossible - tomorrow is his last stand
Even if it is the case that his leadership ambitions die tomorrow - and frankly I find that hard to believe - he can cause trouble very easily for a long time nevertheless, as a Brexit reckoning is coming for the Tories, and too many of them are not going to be able to back down. He could, but he may decide better to be a constant troublemaker instead.
And let us not forget May is far from safe yet, let alone a deal reached.
With the possible exception of Mogg Boris is the only Rockstar the Tories have to counter Corbyn, even if many can't stand him
Mogg a rockstar?
A month back I saw a group of tourists recognise JRM and shout and wave to him as he crossed Whitehall. He has a certain charisma and is on telly a lot. Whether you like the message or not, that places him above most MPs.
Didn’t they get his name wrong though?
They did, yes. I must have told this before (or you were tourist number 3). To be fair, they did know they'd forgotten his name as they fumbled around the J's: a sort of collective tip-of-the-tongue phenomenon.
“Low skilled immigration will fall”. So leads the BBC this morning.
And with those words May ramps up pressure on her successors to deliver?
Whilst voters on doorstep will tell politicians what to do, there’s too much immigration and so not enough homes for us and it’s killing the NHS, there’s key sectors of the economy, such as social care, struggling with unfilled vacancies, that in truth the NHS needs filled.
Gordon Browns weapon of choice for outflanking Tories on immigration was to keep repeating BJ4BW lines. If they’re naming it in 4 I can name it in 3 Tom. Like a footballer whose injections gets his knee through the next couple of games, but ultimately there is a price to be paid. He now has the political credibility of a cripple. But worse left his team weak in that position.
Who believes leaving EU gives UK government the control to easily and speedily deliver May’s explicit promise to the voters? I don’t. What I would prefer to see is advantages of leaving EU FOM and control taken back, put into honest context of what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy? I would like to see honesty from British politicians the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms! I would like to see honesty from politicians that, even when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
Who believes ramping up promises like this are electorally very dangerous if not quickly delivered, but is tactic used by likes of Brown and May at conference time to shore up their own positions at the expense of credibility of their successors?
Every poll on immigration shows it is low skilled immigration voters want cut, they are less bothered about high skilled immigration.
Every poll shows that. Ask them if they would be prepared to do the sort of jobs in which low skilled immigrant workers are dominant and they emphatically say know (presumably they just want 'other' millions of people on benefits to do them). Anyone who lives in London knows that without low skilled immigrant workers most of the restaurant business (to take but one example) in this country would have serious problems. And i doubt it is a problem simply solved by increasing wages, such is the nature of the jobs involved.
Damn it! I've just realised why I keep failing at job interviews. It's because I'm hardly ever emotional, never cry, nor do I boast of loving beer.
Next time.
Advice and consent isn’t a job interview
It’s a confirmation hearing not an appointment hearing
It’s vetting for suitability for a job, so Robert’s point stands. You keep comparing it to a criminal trial, with reference to the presumption of innocence. If he were to be impeached, we could have an interesting debate about that....
I’m puzzled why Republicans want to die in a ditch for this guy. Granted he is a naked partisan in a way many judges on the Fedaralist Society list aren’t, but otherwise he is deeply unimpressive as a judge, and his appointment now would look utterly horrible.
Natural justice - it’s an ethics not a legal concept
In a sense though, the allegations (bad as they are) are now secondary to the fact that the way he behaved at his confirmation hearing strongly indicated he has neither the temperament or the intellect to be a good judge.
That on its own is a good enough reason to veto him.
That’s a better argument. Although the way he reacted is consistent with someone who has been falsely accused and then finds a bunch of two-bit politicians taking pot shots at him
I think a hysterical performance where he threatens revenge should knock you out of the running for a role that is to act as a dispassionate and ultimate judge of the law and constitution.
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
Not having industries that rely on supply chains would be a red line for me. Including our very substantial car manufacturing industry. Who cares if we apply the same tariff on Peruvian guano as the EU?
The EU are currently passing legislation that restricts the import of old books.
Having a foreign power in charge of your trade policy is bonkers.
I’m not sure that the problems of an antiquarian bookseller matter much to voters who thought that leaving the EU would lead to the return of “proper” lightbulbs or the removal from the country of anyone who speaks foreign.
It’s illustrative of a wider point.
Having a foreign power in charge of what you can and can’t import, and what tarriffs you have to charge, and indeed remitting your duties to a foreign power, is unacceptable.
Agreed. But the EU is not a foreign power. It is a voluntary association we chose to join.
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
It looks like May has basically adopted Corbyn's Brexit plan by another name ie the UK stays in a Customs Union to avoid a hard border in Ireland until a technical solution can be found.
It should therefore get through the Commons albeit with ERG opposition and get us a withdrawal agreement and transition period and May can then go back to using Chequers as a starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
“Low skilled immigration will fall”. So leads the BBC this morning.
And with those words May ramps up pressure on her successors to deliver?
Whilst voters on doorstep will tell politicians what to do, there’s too much immigration and so not enough homes for us and it’s killing the NHS, there’s key sectors of the economy, such as social care, struggling with unfilled vacancies, that in truth the NHS needs filled.
Gordon Browns weapon of choice for outflanking Tories on immigration was to keep repeating BJ4BW lines. If they’re naming it in 4 I can name it in 3 Tom. Like a footballer whose injections gets his knee through the next couple of games, but ultimately there is a price to be paid. He now has the political credibility of a cripple. But worse left his team weak in that position.
Who believes leaving EU gives UK government the control to easily and speedily deliver May’s explicit promise to the voters? I don’t. What I would prefer to see is advantages of leaving EU FOM and control taken back, put into honest context of what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy? I would like to see honesty from British politicians the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms! I would like to see honesty from politicians that, even when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
Who believes ramping up promises like this are electorally very dangerous if not quickly delivered, but is tactic used by likes of Brown and May at conference time to shore up their own positions at the expense of credibility of their successors?
I can't imagine the immigration cutting voters will be tagged along for much longer, at some point they will want to see progress or someone they think is on their side takeover the leadership otherwise a portion of them will stop voting Conservative.
“Low skilled immigration will fall”. So leads the BBC this morning.
And with those words May ramps up pressure on her successors to deliver?
Whilst voters on doorstep will tell politicians what to do, there’s too much immigration and so not enough homes for us and it’s killing the NHS, there’s key sectors of the economy, such as social care, struggling with unfilled vacancies, that in truth the NHS needs filled.
Gordon Browns weapon of choice for outflanking Tories on immigration was to keep repeating BJ4BW lines. If they’re naming it in 4 I can name it in 3 Tom. Like a footballer whose injections gets his knee through the next couple of games, but ultimately there is a price to be paid. He now has the political credibility of a cripple. But worse left his team weak in that position.
Who believes leaving EU gives UK government the control to easily and speedily deliver May’s explicit promise to the voters? I don’t. What I would prefer to see is advantages of leaving EU FOM and control taken back, put into honest context of what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy? I would like to see honesty from British politicians the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms! I would like to see honesty from politicians that, even when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
Who believes ramping up promises like this are electorally very dangerous if not quickly delivered, but is tactic used by likes of Brown and May at conference time to shore up their own positions at the expense of credibility of their successors?
Every poll on immigration shows it is low skilled immigration voters want cut, they are less bothered about high skilled immigration.
Every poll shows that. Ask them if they would be prepared to do the sort of jobs in which low skilled immigrant workers are dominant and they emphatically say know (presumably they just want 'other' millions of people on benefits to do them). Anyone who lives in London knows that without low skilled immigrant workers most of the restaurant business (to take but one example) in this country would have serious problems. And i doubt it is a problem simply solved by increasing wages, such is the nature of the jobs involved.
Uncontrolled low skilled immigration also lowers wages for the low skilled and adds to demand for affordable housing and pressure on public services
Damn it! I've just realised why I keep failing at job interviews. It's because I'm hardly ever emotional, never cry, nor do I boast of loving beer.
Next time.
Advice and consent isn’t a job interview
It’s a confirmation hearing not an appointment hearing
It’s vetting for suitability for a job, so Robert’s point stands. You keep comparing it to a criminal trial, with reference to the presumption of innocence. If he were to be impeached, we could have an interesting debate about that....
I’m puzzled why Republicans want to die in a ditch for this guy. Granted he is a naked partisan in a way many judges on the Fedaralist Society list aren’t, but otherwise he is deeply unimpressive as a judge, and his appointment now would look utterly horrible.
Natural justice - it’s an ethics not a legal concept
In a sense though, the allegations (bad as they are) are now secondary to the fact that the way he behaved at his confirmation hearing strongly indicated he has neither the temperament or the intellect to be a good judge.
That on its own is a good enough reason to veto him.
That’s a better argument. Although the way he reacted is consistent with someone who has been falsely accused and then finds a bunch of two-bit politicians taking pot shots at him
You mean he dissembled and arguably perjured himself (whilst playing up suggestions of a "political hitjob") because telling the truth about his social activities in his youth would only have added credence to the serious charges he was being directed accused of.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
Quite. When people say "no evidence" they mean "no corroborating evidence". And in fact, as pointed out in the excellent twitter thread referenced earlier, (https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046594628005363718) what they actually mean is "no (direct) corroborating witnesses" - because there is a mountain of corroborating evidence of various degrees (largely corroborating to the extent that in a "he said/she said" situation, it is important if there is evidence that one or other is an unreliable witness. And here the case against Kavanaugh is overwhelming)
I think 'overwhelming' is putting it slightly too strongly. While I believe Ford, and think Kavanaugh gives every appearance of being a practiced though unconvincing liar, I think it doubtful one could convict him 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on the current evidence (even if the statute of limitations, which back then was one year (!) had no long since rendered the question of a criminal charge moot).
What seems unquestionable is that any impartial investigator looking into the case would see that it demands further investigation.
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
It looks like May has basically adopted Corbyn's Brexit plan by another name ie the UK stays in a Customs Union to avoid a hard border in Ireland until a technical solution can be found.
It should therefore get through the Commons albeit with ERG opposition and get us a withdrawal agreement and transition period and May can then go back to using Chequers as a starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
I love the magical words 'technical solution' ! They mean absolutely sod-all when we can't be sure that a 'technical solution' even exists.
Damn it! I've just realised why I keep failing at job interviews. It's because I'm hardly ever emotional, never cry, nor do I boast of loving beer.
Next time.
Advice and consent isn’t a job interview
It’s a confirmation hearing not an appointment hearing
It’s vetting for suitability for a job, so Robert’s point stands. You keep comparing it to a criminal trial, with reference to the presumption of innocence. If he were to be impeached, we could have an interesting debate about that....
I’m puzzled why Republicans want to die in a ditch for this guy. Granted he is a naked partisan in a way many judges on the Fedaralist Society list aren’t, but otherwise he is deeply unimpressive as a judge, and his appointment now would look utterly horrible.
Natural justice - it’s an ethics not a legal concept
In a sense though, the allegations (bad as they are) are now secondary to the fact that the way he behaved at his confirmation hearing strongly indicated he has neither the temperament or the intellect to be a good judge.
That on its own is a good enough reason to veto him.
That’s a better argument. Although the way he reacted is consistent with someone who has been falsely accused and then finds a bunch of two-bit politicians taking pot shots at him
It's also entirely consistent with his being guilty as sin.
What it is not consistent with is appointment to the Supreme Court.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
No (I haven’t had the chance to watch the full evidence I have recorded yet). But it’s an allegation plus some circumstantial evidence.
There’s a very very good reason why word against word in traumatic situations is not relied on. Transference is extremely common - it puts the blame onto a third person and therefore makes the victim purely passive (vs, for example, choosing to date someone who subsequently attacks her - it’s important to realise that there is no *actual* blame or responsibility attached to the victim, but this is the way the brain works sometimes in trauma. By creating an extra step of distance it can help with the healing process)
(As an aside I saw a twitter post yesterday to the effect that her therapists notes and her July 6 letter referred to the attack being in the mid 80s/late teens. Now everyone is focusing on 82/15. Is that true or is it some twitter monkey making stuff up?)
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
He wasn't her "boyfriend" in a serious sense. She was asked about him during the course of the Senate hearing (it isn't a new "revelation"). The fact that she went out with him is actually evidence that he dissembled (/lied) when he said he didn't know her - and was why the reference to him ("Squi") on the July 1st calendar was important.
The big underlying story about the "mistaken identity" claims was that these were being concocted in advance of Ford's name being made public. Which implies that Kavanaugh knew who was making the allegations before her name had been revealed.
Occam’s razor suggests one of the Republicans on the committee leaked it
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
Quite. When people say "no evidence" they mean "no corroborating evidence". And in fact, as pointed out in the excellent twitter thread referenced earlier, (https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046594628005363718) what they actually mean is "no (direct) corroborating witnesses" - because there is a mountain of corroborating evidence of various degrees (largely corroborating to the extent that in a "he said/she said" situation, it is important if there is evidence that one or other is an unreliable witness. And here the case against Kavanaugh is overwhelming)
I think 'overwhelming' is putting it slightly too strongly. While I believe Ford, and think Kavanaugh gives every appearance of being a practiced though unconvincing liar, I think it doubtful one could convict him 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on the current evidence (even if the statute of limitations, which back then was one year (!) had no long since rendered the question of a criminal charge moot).
What seems unquestionable is that any impartial investigator looking into the case would see that it demands further investigation.
I didn't mean the evidence that he was guilty of the specific charge was overwhelming. I meant the evidence that he was an unreliable witness was overwhelming. That doesn't in itself mean that there is evidence to a criminal standard of proof (although there rarely is in sex cases of course).
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
No (I haven’t had the chance to watch the full evidence I have recorded yet). But it’s an allegation plus some circumstantial evidence. ...
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
Quite. When people say "no evidence" they mean "no corroborating evidence". And in fact, as pointed out in the excellent twitter thread referenced earlier, (https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046594628005363718) what they actually mean is "no (direct) corroborating witnesses" - because there is a mountain of corroborating evidence of various degrees (largely corroborating to the extent that in a "he said/she said" situation, it is important if there is evidence that one or other is an unreliable witness. And here the case against Kavanaugh is overwhelming)
I think 'overwhelming' is putting it slightly too strongly. While I believe Ford, and think Kavanaugh gives every appearance of being a practiced though unconvincing liar, I think it doubtful one could convict him 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on the current evidence (even if the statute of limitations, which back then was one year (!) had no long since rendered the question of a criminal charge moot).
What seems unquestionable is that any impartial investigator looking into the case would see that it demands further investigation.
I didn't mean the evidence that he was guilty of the specific charge was overwhelming. I meant the evidence that he was an unreliable witness was overwhelming. That doesn't in itself mean that there is evidence to a criminal standard of proof (although there rarely is in sex cases of course).
Per the Times front page, we're staying in the Customs Union in all but name.
Mrs May is turning out to be the best PM since Maggie.
Indeed. We will look back at this time of describe it as TMay's finest hour.
You two do worry me sometimes. Do you actually follow politics at all? You like the idea of watered down FOM and in CU in all but name?
1. Too much cherry picking for EU to accept. 2. At least half the Tory party will hate it. 3. Brazenly not just breaks her own red lines, but converts them to large black and white pointy lines, pointing way to job centre.
For May there will be no finest hour. It’s not sad, like Brown she’s talentless PM, don’t deserve finest hour. Gives a good speech, performs well in interviews? Nope, nope. Knows her brief, knows her own mind? Nope, nope. She inherited crown by default, by not being in a faction. better peers poisoned each other off, fell on their own swords, or got an arrow in the eye from voters.
Quite. There is nothing principled about this - she is just trying to save her skin by lying. Why would a genuine, self-respecting politician conspire with a foreign power to try to mislead her own citizens about what she is doing? If she wants to be in the CU, why would she just not say so?
Because, of course, she promised in blood that she would not do this. She promised that the country would have an independent trade policy, which is IMPOSSIBLE in a customs union, whatever you call it. She promised the transition would be time limited. Oh, and being in the CU does not solve NI unless we are fully aligned with SM regulations, so of course it is cherry picking until she concedes on FOM as well.
She is a disgrace. And she will be defeated.
Does the Maybot not understand the 3 words "no cherry picking", so eloquently portrayed in Tusk's excellent Instagram?
It's a negotiation. Cherry picking is the entire point. She just cannot have specific cherries. If you believe there is no give or take permissible at all the EU would not need to negotiate either.
“Low skilled immigration will fall”. So leads the BBC this morning.
And with those words May ramps up pressure on her successors to deliver?
Whilst voters on doorstep will tell politicians what to do, there’s too much immigration and so not enough homes for us and it’s killing the NHS, there’s key sectors of the economy, such as social care, struggling with unfilled vacancies, that in truth the NHS needs filled.
Gordon Browns weapon of choice for outflanking Tories on immigration was to keep repeating BJ4BW lines. If they’re naming it in 4 I can name it in 3 Tom. Like a footballer whose injections gets his knee through the next couple of games, but ultimately there is a price to be paid. He now has the political credibility of a cripple. But worse left his team weak in that position.
Who believes leaving EU gives UK government the control to easily and speedily deliver May’s explicit promise to the voters? I don’t. What I would prefer to see is advantages of leaving EU FOM and control taken back, put into honest context of what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy? I would like to see honesty from British politicians the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms! I would like to see honesty from politicians that, even when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
Who believes ramping up promises like this are electorally very dangerous if not quickly delivered, but is tactic used by likes of Brown and May at conference time to shore up their own positions at the expense of credibility of their successors?
I can't imagine the immigration cutting voters will be tagged along for much longer, at some point they will want to see progress or someone they think is on their side takeover the leadership otherwise a portion of them will stop voting Conservative.
That is the coming problem for the Tories, keeping the protectionist nationalist, anti-immigration voters turning out for them. It won't be done by cutting corporation taxes or trade deals with India.
What is toxic to some is meat and drink to others. It is the mirror image of Momentum.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
He wasn't her "boyfriend" in a serious sense. She was asked about him during the course of the Senate hearing (it isn't a new "revelation"). The fact that she went out with him is actually evidence that he dissembled (/lied) when he said he didn't know her - and was why the reference to him ("Squi") on the July 1st calendar was important.
The big underlying story about the "mistaken identity" claims was that these were being concocted in advance of Ford's name being made public. Which implies that Kavanaugh knew who was making the allegations before her name had been revealed.
Occam’s razor suggests one of the Republicans on the committee leaked it
It's not clear that the Republicans on the committee knew the name either.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
No (I haven’t had the chance to watch the full evidence I have recorded yet). But it’s an allegation plus some circumstantial evidence.
There’s a very very good reason why word against word in traumatic situations is not relied on. Transference is extremely common - it puts the blame onto a third person and therefore makes the victim purely passive (vs, for example, choosing to date someone who subsequently attacks her - it’s important to realise that there is no *actual* blame or responsibility attached to the victim, but this is the way the brain works sometimes in trauma. By creating an extra step of distance it can help with the healing process) ...
Which is all very well, were there no other allegations.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
Quite. When people say "no evidence" they mean "no corroborating evidence". And in fact, as pointed out in the excellent twitter thread referenced earlier, (https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1046594628005363718) what they actually mean is "no (direct) corroborating witnesses" - because there is a mountain of corroborating evidence of various degrees (largely corroborating to the extent that in a "he said/she said" situation, it is important if there is evidence that one or other is an unreliable witness. And here the case against Kavanaugh is overwhelming)
Is there a different legal usage in the US? (Genuine question)
I would have said there is a bunch of *circumstantial* evidence that he was in that group at about that time - which increases the plausibility of her evidence - but nothing that *corroborates* (ie supports the truth of) her evidence
“Low skilled immigration will fall”. So leads the BBC this morning.
And with those words May ramps up pressure on her successors to deliver?
Whilst voters on doorstep will tell politicians what to do, there’s too much immigration and so not enough homes for us and it’s killing the NHS, there’s key sectors of the economy, such as social care, struggling with unfilled vacancies, that in truth the NHS needs filled.
Gordon Browns weapon of choice for outflanking Tories on immigration was to keep repeating BJ4BW lines. If they’re naming it in 4 I can name it in 3 Tom. Like a footballer whose injections gets his knee through the next couple of games, but ultimately there is a price to be paid. He now has the political credibility of a cripple. But worse left his team weak in that position.
Who believes leaving EU gives UK government the control to easily and speedily deliver May’s explicit promise to the voters? I don’t. What I would prefer to see is advantages of leaving EU FOM and control taken back, put into honest context of what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy? I would like to see honesty from British politicians the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms! I would like to see honesty from politicians that, even when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
Who believes ramping up promises like this are electorally very dangerous if not quickly delivered, but is tactic used by likes of Brown and May at conference time to shore up their own positions at the expense of credibility of their successors?
I can't imagine the immigration cutting voters will be tagged along for much longer, at some point they will want to see progress or someone they think is on their side takeover the leadership otherwise a portion of them will stop voting Conservative.
That is the coming problem for the Tories, keeping the protectionist nationalist, anti-immigration voters turning out for them. It won't be done by cutting corporation taxes or trade deals with India.
What is toxic to some is meat and drink to others. It is the mirror image of Momentum.
Yeah. There's a good chance that the immigrant-haters will move over to Labour, which is filled with hate at the top, and is led by an anti-Semite. Fertile ground to attract scum.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
Dr Ford's testimony and the outright lies and dissembling in Kavanaugh's defence.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
The attack is now irrelevent. We have a conga line of witnesses saying he's lying about his school/college drinking. He lied under oath.
Maybe he is right, maybe this is a well organised Clinton conspiracy against him.
“Low skilled immigration will fall”. So leads the BBC this morning.
And with those words May ramps up pressure on her successors to deliver?
Whilst voters on doorstep will tell politicians what to do, there’s too much immigration and so not enough homes for us and it’s killing the NHS, there’s key sectors of the economy, such as social care, struggling with unfilled vacancies, that in truth the NHS needs filled.
Gordon Browns weapon of choice for outflanking Tories on immigration was to keep repeating BJ4BW lines. If they’re naming it in 4 I can name it in 3 Tom. Like a footballer whose injections gets his knee through the next couple of games, but ultimately there is a price to be paid. He now has the political credibility of a cripple. But worse left his team weak in that position.
Who believes leaving EU gives UK government the control to easily and speedily deliver May’s explicit promise to the voters? I don’t. What I would prefer to see is advantages of leaving EU FOM and control taken back, put into honest context of what that actually means if we sign further trade deals with EU and other countries under global Britain, how much is just signed away again to replace what FOM gave British economy? I would like to see honesty from British politicians the extent governments for decades have been addicted to immigration, because these people are working age, pay taxes, and fill key vacancies in key sectors, immigration not forced on us by EU rules but has been embraced with open arms! I would like to see honesty from politicians that, even when we come out EU, the extent government must clash with what business wants to be able to exploit any control taken back.
Who believes ramping up promises like this are electorally very dangerous if not quickly delivered, but is tactic used by likes of Brown and May at conference time to shore up their own positions at the expense of credibility of their successors?
I can't imagine the immigration cutting voters will be tagged along for much longer, at some point they will want to see progress or someone they think is on their side takeover the leadership otherwise a portion of them will stop voting Conservative.
That is the coming problem for the Tories, keeping the protectionist nationalist, anti-immigration voters turning out for them. It won't be done by cutting corporation taxes or trade deals with India.
What is toxic to some is meat and drink to others. It is the mirror image of Momentum.
Yeah. There's a good chance that the immigrant-haters will move over to Labour, which is filled with hate at the top, and is led by an anti-Semite. Fertile ground to attract scum.
Mr. Recidivist, no, it isn't. We never voted to join the EU, and voted to leave in the only referendum we had on the matter.
Mr. HYUFD, her own fault. All she had to do is apply for a party-approved list of witticisms. Instead she tried making her own joke, and committed wrongthink.
Damn it! I've just realised why I keep failing at job interviews. It's because I'm hardly ever emotional, never cry, nor do I boast of loving beer.
Next time.
Advice and consent isn’t a job interview
It’s a confirmation hearing not an appointment hearing
It’s vetting for suitability for a job, so Robert’s point stands. You keep comparing it to a criminal trial, with reference to the presumption of innocence. If he were to be impeached, we could have an interesting debate about that....
I’m puzzled why Republicans want to die in a ditch for this guy. Granted he is a naked partisan in a way many judges on the Fedaralist Society list aren’t, but otherwise he is deeply unimpressive as a judge, and his appointment now would look utterly horrible.
Natural justice - it’s an ethics not a legal concept
In a sense though, the allegations (bad as they are) are now secondary to the fact that the way he behaved at his confirmation hearing strongly indicated he has neither the temperament or the intellect to be a good judge.
That on its own is a good enough reason to veto him.
That’s a better argument. Although the way he reacted is consistent with someone who has been falsely accused and then finds a bunch of two-bit politicians taking pot shots at him
You mean he dissembled and arguably perjured himself (whilst playing up suggestions of a "political hitjob") because telling the truth about his social activities in his youth would only have added credence to the serious charges he was being directed accused of.
I suspect he downplayed his drinking (although FWIW my wife - who was on a sports scholarship to Berkeley - said that it was a common belief that you could do 2 out of 3 of serious academics, serious sport and serious social life but not all 3) because being a drunken jock would undermine his credibility. I do t think we can know if he perjured himself
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
It looks like May has basically adopted Corbyn's Brexit plan by another name ie the UK stays in a Customs Union to avoid a hard border in Ireland until a technical solution can be found.
It should therefore get through the Commons albeit with ERG opposition and get us a withdrawal agreement and transition period and May can then go back to using Chequers as a starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
I love the magical words 'technical solution' ! They mean absolutely sod-all when we can't be sure that a 'technical solution' even exists.
It exists, is in useand I think @Sandpit said it can be bought off the shelf
It’s basically a trusted trader scheme, with self pre-certification plus spot checks and intelligence led investigations
Would it be 100%? No. would it ensure the vast bulk of trade is legitimate? Yes.
It seems to me that the effect of these new immigration rules will make it more difficult for young Brits to revel in the pleasures of going to 27 countries to do bar work and learn some languages and at the same time make it easier for the 70 million Turks to work here.
Damn it! I've just realised why I keep failing at job interviews. It's because I'm hardly ever emotional, never cry, nor do I boast of loving beer.
Next time.
Advice and consent isn’t a job interview
It’s a confirmation hearing not an appointment hearing
It’s vetting for suitability for a job, so Robert’s point stands. You keep comparing it to a criminal trial, with reference to the presumption of innocence. If he were to be impeached, we could have an interesting debate about that....
I’m puzzled why Republicans want to die in a ditch for this guy. Granted he is a naked partisan in a way many judges on the Fedaralist Society list aren’t, but otherwise he is deeply unimpressive as a judge, and his appointment now would look utterly horrible.
Natural justice - it’s an ethics not a legal concept
In a sense though, the allegations (bad as they are) are now secondary to the fact that the way he behaved at his confirmation hearing strongly indicated he has neither the temperament or the intellect to be a good judge.
That on its own is a good enough reason to veto him.
That’s a better argument. Although the way he reacted is consistent with someone who has been falsely accused and then finds a bunch of two-bit politicians taking pot shots at him
It's also entirely consistent with his being guilty as sin.
What it is not consistent with is appointment to the Supreme Court.
I think that’s too much of a leap. Better to look at his record in federal court (I haven’t). A situation like this is unlike any that he will encounters as a Justice
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
Not having industries that rely on supply chains would be a red line for me. Including our very substantial car manufacturing industry. Who cares if we apply the same tariff on Peruvian guano as the EU?
Davidson has been consistent but others are not listening. The scot tories will support a Norway solution and will veto a border between northern Ireland and Scotland
Davidson is the Scottish tory whip.
Aren't the SCons as divided on this question as the wider party? Ross 'Boris, can I have your babies' Thompson has gone off reservation, with several others of a similar persuasion but not as noisy about it.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
No (I haven’t had the chance to watch the full evidence I have recorded yet). But it’s an allegation plus some circumstantial evidence. ...
What it is not is "no evidence".
What I meant was “no proof”, not “no evidence”. Thanks for picking up on that.
In Wales, we will have a new first minster shortly (fall-out from the incredibly opaque Carl Sergeant affair which also involved allegations of a difficult-to-prove nature).
Tories, Plaid Cymru: There should be a new set of elections to confirm the legitimacy of the new First Minister ?
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
No (I haven’t had the chance to watch the full evidence I have recorded yet). But it’s an allegation plus some circumstantial evidence.
There’s a very very good reason why word against word in traumatic situations is not relied on. Transference is extremely common - it puts the blame onto a third person and therefore makes the victim purely passive (vs, for example, choosing to date someone who subsequently attacks her - it’s important to realise that there is no *actual* blame or responsibility attached to the victim, but this is the way the brain works sometimes in trauma. By creating an extra step of distance it can help with the healing process) ...
Which is all very well, were there no other allegations.
The “no smoke without fire argument”. The third one (the lawyer) strikes me as garbage. The exposing one I don’t know enough about. Haven’t really seen it reported in detail
Mr. Recidivist, no, it isn't. We never voted to join the EU, and voted to leave in the only referendum we had on the matter.
Mr. HYUFD, her own fault. All she had to do is apply for a party-approved list of witticisms. Instead she tried making her own joke, and committed wrongthink.
That doesn't alter the fact that the EU is not a foreign power, but an association which we played a full democratic part in. We've always had the option of voting for anti-EU politicians. If you don't want the benefits of the EU by all means argue against them. But don't make out it is some kind of imposition.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
Dr Ford's testimony and the outright lies and dissembling in Kavanaugh's defence.
That’s not proof. That’s an allegation and then inference from the accused’s reeaction.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
The attack is now irrelevent. We have a conga line of witnesses saying he's lying about his school/college drinking. He lied under oath.
Maybe he is right, maybe this is a well organised Clinton conspiracy against him.
He never denied drinking a lot. He only denied ever blacking out (that I saw)
Mr. Recidivist, when the political class agree on a centre ground, even if it has no common ground with the electorate, it's difficult to choose something else (see also overseas aid spending). UKIP was getting more votes and, in a free choice, the electorate chose to leave the EU.
For that matter, the public voted for parties promising a referendum on Lisbon, which led to Labour reneging upon that (still, for me, the critical moment), and the Lib Dems abstaining in Parliament and some young man called Nick Clegg calling for an In/Out referendum.
It exists, is in useand I think @Sandpit said it can be bought off the shelf
It’s basically a trusted trader scheme, with self pre-certification plus spot checks and intelligence led investigations
Would it be 100%? No. would it ensure the vast bulk of trade is legitimate? Yes.
I am really, really cynical that that is correct. Individual circumstances are different, and so far all we have is: "it exists and everything will be alright."
Anyone who has been involved with complicated projects understand darned well that moving a working system from one area to another, even slightly different area, is fraught with difficulty - and sometimes impossibility as the differences muck things up.
Personally I'd want to see a heck of a load of details before I'd be convinced that it's workable - an outline would be a good start.
At the moment it seems more a matter of faith than reality. A dream. A convenient fantasy.
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC</
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.</p>
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
Not having industries that rely on supply chains would be a red line for me. Including our very substantial car manufacturing industry. Who cares if we apply the same tariff on Peruvian guano as the EU?
The EU are currently passing legislation that restricts the import of old books.
Having a foreign power in charge of your trade policy is bonkers.
I’m not sure that the problems of an antiquarian bookseller matter much to voters who thought that leaving the EU would lead to the return of “proper” lightbulbs or the removal from the country of anyone who speaks foreign.
It’s illustrative of a wider point.
Having a foreign power in charge of what you can and can’t import, and what tarriffs you have to charge, and indeed remitting your duties to a foreign power, is unacceptable.
The EU is a foreign power? This would be the union of nations of which we are a member. See also, NATO and the Commonwealth.
These historical allegations are incredibly difficult to prove one way or another (e.g., Leon Brittan is now exonerated despite Tom Watson's hounding).
But, Kavanagh comes across as a hugely unpleasant person -- even by the already demanding standards of US public life.
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
May can then go back to using Chequers as a starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
I love the magical words 'technical solution' ! They mean absolutely sod-all when we can't be sure that a 'technical solution' even exists.
It exists, is in useand I think @Sandpit said it can be bought off the shelf
It’s basically a trusted trader scheme, with self pre-certification plus spot checks and intelligence led investigations
Would it be 100%? No. would it ensure the vast bulk of trade is legitimate? Yes.
Do you know that? Or are you relying on the testimony of an anonymous bloke on the internet?
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
You don't need proof. This is about the court of public opinion. Kavanagh was very unlucky that his accuser turned out to be so believable. If you were casting the witness who exposes the corrupt judge she would get the part without needing a recall. What's more if you got Reginald Rose to write her testimony he couldn't have done a better job.
' Controversial plans to chop down a German forest to build a vast coal mine should proceed because Germany needs the polluting fuel to keep the lights on, according to the chief of the country’s state secretary for energy. '
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This has been Barnier’s plan all along. Pocket the money and then refuse to complete any trade deal which allows the UK out of the SM. And at that point, FOM will be back and all May’s red lines will go.
If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
Not having industries that rely on supply chains would be a red line for me. Including our very substantial car manufacturing industry. Who cares if we apply the same tariff on Peruvian guano as the EU?
The EU are currently passing legislation that restricts the import of old books.
Having a foreign power in charge of your trade policy is bonkers.
You will need to make a statement to the effect that you are not financing terrorism.
It seems to me that the effect of these new immigration rules will make it more difficult for young Brits to revel in the pleasures of going to 27 countries to do bar work and learn some languages and at the same time make it easier for the 70 million Turks to work here.
Only if those Turks are highly skilled, as May has made clear her focus on immigration is high skilled immigrants and reducing low skilled immigration wherever immigrants come from
F1: high chance of rain on Friday. Correspondingly, I've backed, with tiny stakes (the total is less than bus fare), the Williams, McLaren and Sauber drivers all to 'win' FP1, each way (fifth the odds top three).
Also put a small sum on Verstappen to win the race, each way (third the odds top 2), at 17 (19 with boost). In the rain, he could do well.
Of course, a lot of that's down to weather, but with boost you can get 901 on each Williams chap to top the session, and that could happen.
Mr. Recidivist, no, it isn't. We never voted to join the EU, and voted to leave in the only referendum we had on the matter.
Mr. HYUFD, her own fault. All she had to do is apply for a party-approved list of witticisms. Instead she tried making her own joke, and committed wrongthink.
That doesn't alter the fact that the EU is not a foreign power, but an association which we played a full democratic part in. We've always had the option of voting for anti-EU politicians. If you don't want the benefits of the EU by all means argue against them. But don't make out it is some kind of imposition.
We voted to join the EEC, true. However, as Mr Recidivist says, our duly elected representatives, at all levels, took a full part in the development of that Community and it’s transition into the EU. That we didn’t have a referendum when the transition happened, as some, not all, other members did is, in the light of what has transpired, highly regrettable. There was no significant opposition to EU membership until after the Financial Crash, combined with immigration from Eastern Europe.
Awaiting HY to come along with some spurious poll...
The best electoral combination would still be Boris for the UK at the next general election and Davidson in Scotland ideally holding the balance of power at Holyrood in 2021.
However hopefully May is moving towards doing the necessary on the Irish border and the backstop it seems to get us a transition deal which must be the priority for now, we can only start thinking about FTA talks once we have that transition period confirmed
Staying in the customs union until a trade deal is agreed is inspired thinking and I hope it is true
It would sail through the HOC
Unfortunately it would not, because it is a lie.
Assuming May gets her way, the UK wide backstop is permanent and can only be ended by the EU. But CETA is incompatible with the CU and the EU have already rejected a bespoke deal. So in the end, agreeing to this backstop simply makes the transition permanent. Nobody can explain how we can ever get a deal where the EU are happy to end the Backstop that does not involve the UK remaining in the SM/CU.
This If she tries to agree this she will be defeated. The only way she can sell this is if the backstop is time limited, in the way she promised her MPs in writing. The EU won’t agree that. But she is desperate to sellout to save her own skin. Luckily the ERG will tear this plan apart.
Membership of the customs union would be a redline for me.
Not having industries that rely on supply chains would be a red line for me. Including our very substantial car manufacturing industry. Who cares if we apply the same tariff on Peruvian guano as the EU?
The EU are currently passing legislation that restricts the import of old books.
Having a foreign power in charge of your trade policy is bonkers.
I’m not sure that the problems of an antiquarian bookseller matter much to voters who thought that leaving the EU would lead to the return of “proper” lightbulbs or the removal from the country of anyone who speaks foreign.
It’s illustrative of a wider point.
Having a foreign power in charge of what you can and can’t import, and what tarriffs you have to charge, and indeed remitting your duties to a foreign power, is unacceptable.
Large powers have always pushed small ones around, it was ever thus. A pity we decided to detach ourselves from a large one.
Mr. Matt, voting to leave the EU then opting to have it dictate trade policy without even the pretence of British influence or the EU having any duty to pretend to consider the British interest is demented.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
Dr Ford's testimony and the outright lies and dissembling in Kavanaugh's defence.
That’s not proof. That’s an allegation and then inference from the accused’s reeaction.
As you well know, absolute proof is never achieved in any trial. The question that matters is, given the evidence presented to the committee, is Kavanaugh worthy to serve on the Supreme Court? The answer appears to be no.
' Controversial plans to chop down a German forest to build a vast coal mine should proceed because Germany needs the polluting fuel to keep the lights on, according to the chief of the country’s state secretary for energy. '
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
She may want to but it is not in her hands. I believe late spring 2019 will see her challenged and to be fair she has had the worst job any PM has faced since the war and it is taking a toll.
Intriguing though what @Alistair posted earlier - that the Republican identified someone else for the attack *who was dating Ford at the time* and who was a regular companion to Kavanaugh
If Kavanaugh was the attacker then attacking a mates girlfriend is particularly brazen
If the other person was I could see how the transference could work in Ford’s mind: she’s obviously not stupid enough to date someone who would attack her so it must have been someone else. Probably that drunken buffoon her boyfriend hangs out with.
Convoluted. Did you work backwards from your desired outcome?
No. I find it curious that the person who the Republican investigator identified was her boyfriend. But I know nothing about the quality or otherwise of their investigation.
There’s been no evidence that Javanaygh (sic) committed this attack beyond “he drank a lot and hung out with a group of kids”.
So you completely dismiss Dr. Ford's testimony ?
For some it is very simple: Republicans right, Democrat wrong. The truth needs to be fitted around that, no matter how bent it becomes.
I agree. What proof do you have that a Kavanaugh attacked Dr Ford?
The attack is now irrelevent. We have a conga line of witnesses saying he's lying about his school/college drinking. He lied under oath.
Maybe he is right, maybe this is a well organised Clinton conspiracy against him.
He never denied drinking a lot. He only denied ever blacking out (that I saw)
And he denied drinking a lot on weekdays. He said the alleged attack must have been on the weekend as he didn't drink on weekdays which was a bizarre lie to perjure himself over but he did commit perjury.
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Genuinely, if it's an absolute red line then being one side or the other must have a material impact on one's life. Really?
Why must it? Brexit is the ultimate feels > reals project.
Because for many it's the effect of a society changing as a consequence of unprecedented immigration. You can say that they're wrong but it reflects a founded opinion. I struggle to believe that anyone has thought the same of a Customs Union. Ever.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
You'll find that they're frequently expatriates, wannabe expatriates or confirmed bedroom dwellers.
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
You speak for the entire business community now? There are many businesses and potential businesses that would love to be able to take advantage of wonderful trade deals but are unable to.
Of course those who are advantaged most by the existing deals may not want the boat rocking. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU Exit from the CAP and CFP End of large financial contributions No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
It is not acceptable. Firstly, it is not possible to have an independent trade policy if you are in the Customs Union. Secondly, you end up with an absurd situation where goods made in GB cannot be send to part of the country (eg NI) if they don't meet EU standards. In reality of course we will be stuck with EU standards as well. Thirdly, it binds future Parliaments (the commitment to stay in the CU unless the EU approve our withdrawal) in a manner which is constitutionally unprecedented.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
If Conservative MPs are really interested in having an independent trade policy they would be demanding the removal of Liam Fox.
Mr. Blue, if we're staying in the customs union we might as well stay in the EU.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
You speak for the entire business community now? There are many businesses and potential businesses that would love to be able to take advantage of wonderful trade deals but are unable to.
Of course those who are advantaged most by the existing deals may not want the boat rocking. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
It’ll be a shock for the Overseas Trade people, according my son who makes his living making deals for British good outside the EU. If the deals not worth £10m they’re not interested.
Comments
As he testified under oath.
The only person who would ever agree to that is someone who was determined to stop us leaving in the first place, Mr Robbins.
But once again we are seeing May offering concessions to the EU without having received anything in return. She really is a complete joke.
The big underlying story about the "mistaken identity" claims was that these were being concocted in advance of Ford's name being made public. Which implies that Kavanaugh knew who was making the allegations before her name had been revealed.
On FoM admittedly of course the EU allowed us to implement transition controls on free movement from the main wave of new accession countries to the EU in 2004 but Blair refused to implement them, only changing course and implementing them when Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU in 2007
The corollary would be that Kavanaugh's bizarre performance in front of the Committee can't be evidence of his unsuitability, either.
It would also be a gain of 31 seats for the Democrats on 2016 on the 193 seats they have now. 31 seats was also the gain the Democrats made in 2006 when they last took the House
It should therefore get through the Commons albeit with ERG opposition and get us a withdrawal agreement and transition period and May can then go back to using Chequers as a starting point for FTA negotiations in the transition period
While I believe Ford, and think Kavanaugh gives every appearance of being a practiced though unconvincing liar, I think it doubtful one could convict him 'beyond a reasonable doubt' on the current evidence (even if the statute of limitations, which back then was one year (!) had no long since rendered the question of a criminal charge moot).
What seems unquestionable is that any impartial investigator looking into the case would see that it demands further investigation.
What it is not consistent with is appointment to the Supreme Court.
There’s a very very good reason why word against word in traumatic situations is not relied on. Transference is extremely common - it puts the blame onto a third person and therefore makes the victim purely passive (vs, for example, choosing to date someone who subsequently attacks her - it’s important to realise that there is no *actual* blame or responsibility attached to the victim, but this is the way the brain works sometimes in trauma. By creating an extra step of distance it can help with the healing process)
(As an aside I saw a twitter post yesterday to the effect that her therapists notes and her July 6 letter referred to the attack being in the mid 80s/late teens. Now everyone is focusing on 82/15. Is that true or is it some twitter monkey making stuff up?)
What is toxic to some is meat and drink to others. It is the mirror image of Momentum.
I would have said there is a bunch of *circumstantial* evidence that he was in that group at about that time - which increases the plausibility of her evidence - but nothing that *corroborates* (ie supports the truth of) her evidence
https://mobile.twitter.com/spikedonline/status/1046868087029547008
Maybe he is right, maybe this is a well organised Clinton conspiracy against him.
Mr. HYUFD, her own fault. All she had to do is apply for a party-approved list of witticisms. Instead she tried making her own joke, and committed wrongthink.
It’s basically a trusted trader scheme, with self pre-certification plus spot checks and intelligence led investigations
Would it be 100%? No. would it ensure the vast bulk of trade is legitimate? Yes.
In Wales, we will have a new first minster shortly (fall-out from the incredibly opaque Carl Sergeant affair which also involved allegations of a difficult-to-prove nature).
Tories, Plaid Cymru: There should be a new set of elections to confirm the legitimacy of the new First Minister ?
Labour: No
For that matter, the public voted for parties promising a referendum on Lisbon, which led to Labour reneging upon that (still, for me, the critical moment), and the Lib Dems abstaining in Parliament and some young man called Nick Clegg calling for an In/Out referendum.
Anyone who has been involved with complicated projects understand darned well that moving a working system from one area to another, even slightly different area, is fraught with difficulty - and sometimes impossibility as the differences muck things up.
Personally I'd want to see a heck of a load of details before I'd be convinced that it's workable - an outline would be a good start.
At the moment it seems more a matter of faith than reality. A dream. A convenient fantasy.
These historical allegations are incredibly difficult to prove one way or another (e.g., Leon Brittan is now exonerated despite Tom Watson's hounding).
But, Kavanagh comes across as a hugely unpleasant person -- even by the already demanding standards of US public life.
https://twitter.com/fotoole/status/1047028534412292096
' Controversial plans to chop down a German forest to build a vast coal mine should proceed because Germany needs the polluting fuel to keep the lights on, according to the chief of the country’s state secretary for energy. '
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/01/german-minister-backs-plan-to-cut-down-forest-to-build-coal-mine
I know...will cost you personally millions.
https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1047026421208633344
I see one of his daughters is called Margaret which could conceivably be shortened to Meg.
Betting PostF1: high chance of rain on Friday. Correspondingly, I've backed, with tiny stakes (the total is less than bus fare), the Williams, McLaren and Sauber drivers all to 'win' FP1, each way (fifth the odds top three).
Also put a small sum on Verstappen to win the race, each way (third the odds top 2), at 17 (19 with boost). In the rain, he could do well.
Of course, a lot of that's down to weather, but with boost you can get 901 on each Williams chap to top the session, and that could happen.
It sounds as if the deal will be something like this:
End to free movement between the U.K. and EU
Exit from the CAP and CFP
End of large financial contributions
No hard border in Ireland
In exchange, we undertake to
Stay in the Customs Union indefinitely
Require NI to follow Single Market regulations
I think this deal would be acceptable to 80% or more Leave voters. The problem is Conservative MPs and the DUP.
Said for a long time, the customs union is, for me, just about the only absolute red line.
Seriously, why? Who actually wants all these supposedly wonderful additional trade deals? The business community certainly doesn’t; they’re perfectly happy with what we have.
It occurred after the tsunami and earthquake caused the Fukushima[sp] meltdown.
Germany, of course, is renowned for its earthquakes and tsunamis.
The DUP will veto this and the Cabinet Leavers will resign (trade policy was a red line). It will satisfy even less Leave voters than Chequers because it is obviously a worse deal than Chequers. It makes you wonder if this woman is even sane. It breaks all her red lines but here she goes making more concessions in return for nothing.
WRONG!
"fewer" Leave voters.
Jeezus.
Of course those who are advantaged most by the existing deals may not want the boat rocking. Doesn't mean it's not worth doing.
Really ???
https://twitter.com/RossPolitics/status/1046830742339293184
We get our own trade deals and, in return, I'll fire Liam Fox from a giant space cannon into the heart of the sun. It's win-win.
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1047013633505529857?s=21