Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.
On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
Yes, over with - or cancelled!
Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
The problem would be that a deal that offers the prospect of ending the whole saga would be what the majority of voters (whether they were remain or leave) want. So voting it down, and thereby precipitating a GE, would not put Labour in a strong position going into an election called because of Brexit.
I think there is much truth in this.
It depends a little on the deal, and the way it is brought down, and who ends up with the blame.
But, I don’t think just arguing, “I can get a better deal” without being a good deal more specific is likely to work.
My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they can say it was really close but it was her fault.
In reality, little has changed. May is trying to go for an all-UK customs union. The problem with that plan is that it is incompatible with the CETA deal that Barnier and Tusk want. If the UK remains in the customs union as a backstop, the UK will have to stay aligned with SM regulations or it does nothing for the NI border. It basically allows the UK to remain in the SM without observing FOM or payment of money.
Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.
Chequers is completely off the table.
Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.
The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem
look at the evidence from just a few weeks ago leading to the last summit, the EU played exactly the same positive spin game, “95% there” and all that, but as May said meaningless without detail of who or what they feel needs to move to bridge the gap, meaningless without actual comment on the British proposal. it’s just the EU spinning the blame game already, particularly for their audience. The truth is, as has been the British position all along, 95% there? Nothings agreed till everything’s agreed. I note the difference this time. Oh yes. Posters here aren’t linking to the positive noises from EU, newspapers are ignoring for headlines. we’ve seen through EU little game. After what happened last time EU suckered us with this tactic, there’s no mug in Britain daft enough to plaster this positive spin from EU into headlines, or talk it up, that’s just doing the EUs dirty work for them
Boris would be a mistake for the Tories but he is one that they are increasingly unlikely to make. My concern is that when we look up out of the Brexit trenches the strategic picture remains challenging.
After 8 years of graft the deficit is now down to a sustainable level once again but the damage done over the last decade is severe. Our debt as a share of national income has risen from below 40% to well above 80%. That means additional debt of over £400bn. We face major demographic challenges in Social Care and Health Spending over the next decade at least. We are also growing more slowly than we did for both demographic and deficit related reasons.
In the insane period up to 2008 Brown was boosting an economy that was already running hot with both an on balance sheet deficit of 3% plus a large amount of off balance sheet capital expenditure. This was obviously completely unsustainable and contributed to the severity of the crash. Without that sort of fiscal boost however our economy is more likely to grow at 2% rather than 3% or more. New money will help but it is not the answer.
So when our PM announced the end of austerity she lied. We still need another 20 years or so of austerity during which we repair the damage that the GFC did to our books, reduce the debt burden of the next generation to an acceptable level and keep a very tight rein on expenditure. Public spending will continue to grow, probably at a faster rate than in the last 8 years, but almost certainly not like what we saw in the last 2 terms of the Blair government.
There is, in my view, an element of unreality about some Tory plans for spending but given the context in which we sit Labour's plans are bordering on suicidal. Until Labour can find a better purpose than spending lots of other peoples' money or, more often, the next generation's money, it cannot be trusted with government. Our economy is simply not strong enough to survive a Labour government at present or indeed for the foreseeable future.
The personalities are less important than the context. Corbyn is an extreme example of Labour's fiscal incontinence but if he is replaced it is likely to be someone of a similar bent. Boris is somewhat flakier and less reliable than other Tories but he will be constrained to keep spending tight. Our path is set but the optimum way forward is governments willing and able to work on that path rather than indulging in expensive and damaging diversions.
Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.
On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
Yes, over with - or cancelled!
Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
The problem would be that a deal that offers the prospect of ending the whole saga would be what the majority of voters (whether they were remain or leave) want. So voting it down, and thereby precipitating a GE, would not put Labour in a strong position going into an election called because of Brexit.
I think there is much truth in this.
It depends a little on the deal, and the way it is brought down, and who ends up with the blame.
But, I don’t think just arguing, “I can get a better deal” without being a good deal more specific is likely to work.
It might not work for a snap GE, but it can justify mostly voting against and then years from now people might look back, if things are bad, and think May be that was true.
Sometimes I think Corbyns strategy relies on May getting something through so he doesn't have to deliver, as it probably works then.
My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they can say it was really close but it was her fault.
In reality, little has changed. May is trying to go for an all-UK customs union. The problem with that plan is that it is incompatible with the CETA deal that Barnier and Tusk want. If the UK remains in the customs union as a backstop, the UK will have to stay aligned with SM regulations or it does nothing for the NI border. It basically allows the UK to remain in the SM without observing FOM or payment of money.
Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.
Chequers is completely off the table.
Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.
The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem
look at the evidence from just a few weeks ago leading to the last summit, the EU played exactly the same positive spin game, “95% there” and all that, but as May said meaningless without detail of who or what they feel needs to move to bridge the gap, meaningless without actual comment on the British proposal. it’s just the EU spinning the blame game already, particularly for their audience. The truth is, as has been the British position all along, 95% there? Nothings agreed till everything’s agreed.
Even a deal designed to get through the Tories might also be in the interests of the nation. It might not. I believe labour will easily be able to justify voting against it. But the idea no one would be able to justify such a deal, say because they think no deal would be even worse than a tory government with a deal, seems over the top. No one could do that?
Obviously parties exist to take power and believe their side being in power is itself a noble aim. But rebellions happen for a reason and people can be perfectly justified in doing so even if short term it props up someone they don't like. Would someone fearing no deal is a catastrophe therefore be clearly saying labour should not be in power? If course not.
But maybe sometimes attaining power has to wait. Not least since voting down a deal doesn't guarantee they get power.
The other point is that the EU has pressing matters to deal with (other than Brexit).
Once May & the EU have agreed an acceptable deal, then it is in the interests of the EU to get the deal accepted.
If it is voted down by Labour on the grounds that the Govt will fall, there will be an election and Jeremy can negotiate an (unspecified) better deal after another year or two of negotiation, then this pre-supposes that the EU are willing to invest energy and time in going through much the same rigmarole again.
I suspect the EU will make this clear. They would probably prefer us to say. But, if we want to go and they have negotiated an acceptable deal, then the EU will want us to go on those terms.
The last thing they will want is Labour vetoing the deal, and beginning another tortuous set of re-negotiations to recalibrate the deal for the interests of the Labour party.
If any Labour MP won't vote in such a way that destroys a tory PM then you have to ask what's the point of them.
Sometimes the national interest is more important than party politics. If TM comes back with a deal the country will breath a sigh of relief and, as all the polls show, any political moves by anyone to act in purely narrow party interests will be deeply unpopular
You may be right but it's hard to be sure. Always bear in mind that most Labour MPs and Labour voters aren't that interested in Brexit - naturally they want to avoid a disaster for the country, but the fine points of one deal or another elude them, and meanwhile they do think that Mrs May and the Conservatives are already a disaster for the country so getting them out feels to them like a high priority.
There will be clouds of fury over Westminster whatever the deal and it will be attacked by left, right and hardcore Remainers. IMO the majority of people in the country want (a) to avoid a disaster and (b) to get it over with. But it will be hard for people (indeed even for specialists) to judge for sure if it's a disaster or not, as it will certainly be full of fudge. And in reality, the apocalyptic no-deal predictions of aircraft grounded and food running out really won't happen - even a failure to agree will lead to a transitional period to keep things running.
Certainly Labour MPs who vote for the deal against a party decision will be at extreme risk of deselection. Party members who are not Corbynites are often hardcore Remainers (even in seats which voted Leave - remember that Labour voters in Leave seats often voted Remain), and an alliance of the two will be ample to deselect.
Johnson was up against an anti-Semitic opponent who surrounded himself with the assorted detritus of the far left. That’s why he won. But given that’s what he’d be up against were he to lead the Tories it’s probably safe to assume he’d win again; despite being a good friend to racists himself and seeking to tie the UK to a US president who has boasted of sexually abusing women, mocks the handicapped and describes white supremacists as fine people.
Whereas good ol' Tony just surgically attached us to a US president who set the Middle East on fire whilst leading the campaign to reintroduce torture as morally acceptable in free western nations and at the forefront of the fight against the 'dastardly' Geneva convention.
Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.
Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
“Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.
For the Stop the War, Revolutionary Marxists, Jew baiters and other splinters at the top of the Labour Party it justifies everything.
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
As someone who is not ethnically British, I won't vote for a party whose leader uses the phrase "citizens of nowhere".
Mr. Matt, I'm reading a book entitled Stalin: the Court of the Red Tsar. Just come across Lenin's 'idea' that a dictatorship of leaders to rule Russia is fair enough, as they'll make things better and retire as soon as socialism is achieved.
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
As someone who is not ethnically British, I won't vote for a party whose leader uses the phrase "citizens of nowhere".
No-one is “ethnically British” because British isn’t an ethnicity.
English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc are ethnicities. British is a nationality.
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
As someone who is not ethnically British, I won't vote for a party whose leader uses the phrase "citizens of nowhere".
No-one is “ethnically British” because British isn’t an ethnicity.
English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc are ethnicities. British is a nationality.
Really? I've always considered my ethnicity to be White British and that's the box I normally end up ticking on a form asking for it.
My wife's half Scottish so my kids are quarter Scottish. Can you please explain the ethnic differences between English, Scottish and Welsh? Or Irish?
My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they can say it was really close but it was her fault.
In reality, little has changed. May is trying to go for an all-UK customs union. The problem with that plan is that it is incompatible with the CETA deal that Barnier and Tusk want. If the UK remains in the customs union as a backstop, the UK will have to stay aligned with SM regulations or it does nothing for the NI border. It basically allows the UK to remain in the SM without observing FOM or payment of money.
Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.
Chequers is completely off the table.
Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.
The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem.
May's problems will then be:
1. She has agreed to permanent UK membership of the customs union unless the EU release us. 2. It will be impossible to claim that the EU will release us, because under CETA it will not be possible and that will be what is in the political declaration. The customs partnership will not appear in the political declaration, so it will be impossible for May to claim that this will solve the backstop. The only way the backstop could ever be released is to go back to the NI only backstop and institute CETA for GB only. 3. If she caves on a NI only backstop, the DUP will remove her. They may well remove her for an all-UK backstop as well, as it appears to involve a regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
My point being that May has real problems even with her current sellout. It does not provide a path to a deal. It would really only work if the EU accepted Chequers as the basis for the trade agreement. I am sure many will say 'it will be fudged' but there is very little that can dress this up, which is why I predict it would be defeated in Parliament. It will basically be a road to another cliff-edge in less than two years time.
It will get through Parliament. A Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found to the Irish border issue as May is proposing to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period is basically Labour policy anyway and as it covers the whole UK the DUP cannot object and the terms of a Deal can be negotiated in the Transition Period.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Bush talked a good game, which I could never have imagined myself saying but it works in terms of not saying really bad things like Trump does. There certainly wasn't the rallying of racists which is a huge mark against Trump. I'd hate to have him as my president, he is an offence generating machine but in terms of the results of his actions then Trump comes up second for me.
Although he does still have time and the consequences could be worse longer term.
“Yeah, but Tony Blair” does not justify Jeremy Corbyn’s anti-Semitism, I’m afraid.
Actually if you read your post and my reply you'll see I am calling out your attack on Boris Johnson as hypocritical not Corbyn. Partially because "Corbyn is a racist" "no he isn't" "yes he is" is a boring debate but mainly because the point itself is more important.
Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.
Opposing Jeremy Corbyn could make you one of many political affiliations, many non Blairites here do. Repeating Jeremy Corbyn is an anti semite has nothing to do with your hypocritical criticism of Boris.
And now you’ve stopped making any sense at all.
Only a couple of posts back I pointed out that it was your criticism of Boris I was pointing out as hypocritical.
"Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite"
Is not an answer... probably explains part of the centrists electoral problem but it certainly isn't an answer to my post....
Yep, you’re making no sense at all. Are you saying that pointing out Corbyn is an anti-Semite and that Johnson is a friend to racists makes me hypocritical because I am an anti-Semite who is a friend to racists?
I'm not exactly sure what you are struggling with but would it helped if I played along for a second and said Boris and Corbyn are the world's worst people?
It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.
This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
But I do criticise Blair for that. And for his timidity on the domestic front. He spent too much time second guessing the Daily Mail. If he had trusted voters more he could have achieved so much more.
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
As someone who is not ethnically British, I won't vote for a party whose leader uses the phrase "citizens of nowhere".
No-one is “ethnically British” because British isn’t an ethnicity.
English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc are ethnicities. British is a nationality.
Really? I've always considered my ethnicity to be White British and that's the box I normally end up ticking on a form asking for it.
My wife's half Scottish so my kids are quarter Scottish. Can you please explain the ethnic differences between English, Scottish and Welsh? Or Irish?
Like almost everyone else, you are a mongrel.
If British is an ethnicity it means Welsh or Celtic.
I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.
For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon
I totally agree. However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn. As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.
According to Yougov the Tories do worse under Hunt, Javid, Gove and Mogg against Corbyn than they do under Boris where they tie Labour.
Survation last year also had the Tories under Boris doing better than under Hammond and Rudd but May and Davis doing better against Corbyn than Boris
Their was an Opinion poll in the Observer this morning taken after the Tory party conference:-
"Among voters at large, almost twice as many (32%) think May is the best person to run the Conservative party compared with Johnson, who is preferred by 17%.
Among Tory voters, the gap between the two is far more clearly in May’s favour, with 62% thinking she is best to lead the party, compared with 15% who believe Johnson would be better.
When asked about their individual qualities, voters prefer May to Johnson on almost all counts, with Conservative voters again backing her by higher margins than supporters of all parties"
Doesn't support your frequently aired view about the popularity of Johnson does it? I think comparisons with the liberal Johnson that ran for Mayor of London years ago are past their sell-by date, we all know a great deal more about him these days and most people don't like what they see.
It is head to head polls of Tory voteshare v Labour under Johnson that matter and on those he does better than any other Tory contenders albeit no better thsn May
If any Labour MP won't vote in such a way that destroys a tory PM then you have to ask what's the point of them.
Sometimes the national interest is more important than party politics. If TM comes back with a deal the country will breath a sigh of relief and, as all the polls show, any political moves by anyone to act in purely narrow party interests will be deeply unpopular
You may be right but it's hard to be sure. Always bear in mind that most Labour MPs and Labour voters aren't that interested in Brexit - naturally they want to avoid a disaster for the country, but the fine points of one deal or another elude them, and meanwhile they do think that Mrs May and the Conservatives are already a disaster for the country so getting them out feels to them like a high priority.
There will be clouds of fury over Westminster whatever the deal and it will be attacked by left, right and hardcore Remainers. IMO the majority of people in the country want (a) to avoid a disaster and (b) to get it over with. But it will be hard for people (indeed even for specialists) to judge for sure if it's a disaster or not, as it will certainly be full of fudge. And in reality, the apocalyptic no-deal predictions of aircraft grounded and food running out really won't happen - even a failure to agree will lead to a transitional period to keep things running.
Certainly Labour MPs who vote for the deal against a party decision will be at extreme risk of deselection. Party members who are not Corbynites are often hardcore Remainers (even in seats which voted Leave - remember that Labour voters in Leave seats often voted Remain), and an alliance of the two will be ample to deselect.
I shouldn't think Brexit is high on the priorities of Latvian parties, but if Harmony forms a government, I wonder if we will find them being awkward in signing off a Brexit deal. I expect Putin would like them to be, just to be irritating and promote confusion.
The result illustrates the danger of triumphalist nationalism, incidentally. The "we're free, let's obliterate all links with the Russian past" instinct in Ukraine and the Baltic states is understandable but it's equally understandable that minorities of Russian origin feel the government isn't interested in them, and there must be a cohort of voters who want reasonable bridge-building too.
I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.
For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon
I totally agree. However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn. As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
Probably. The one (minor) consolation would be all the post hoc justifications that Tories would find for falling in behind the lazy, duplicitous, far right pandering shit.
Mr. Nashe, they won't. The membership won't back it. Meanwhile, the early steps of deselecting the disloyal have already been taken.
On the other hand, the voters will. They're bored of Brexit and just want it over with.
Yes, over with - or cancelled!
Yes, cancelled would be OK too. But if there's a deal that does not look too economically calamitous, it will be very hard for the Labour Party to defend voting it down.
No it won't. They would have gotten a better deal, vote it down, let's have a GE and then delay things do labour can get a better deal. Simples. With dozens on the Tory side sure to say it's terrible it won't be hard to argue.
If any Labour MP won't vote in such a way that destroys a tory PM then you have to ask what's the point of them.
Sometimes the national interest is more important than party politics. If TM comes back with a deal the country will breath a sigh of relief and, as all the polls show, any political moves by anyone to act in purely narrow party interests will be deeply unpopular
The deal has been finely calibrated for the interests of the tory party with no fucks given for those of the nation. Defeating it is act of the purest patriotism and those who would defend it need to look inward and consider their own fealty and motives.
There’s red lines everywhere, not just May’s. Everybody got red lines at the moment. I’ve even got a couple here, though I will need to tidy round a bit in order to find them. More focus on May’s because she is PM and chief negotiator, hers are the defualt “British proposal”. That’s fair enough, there was an election and she was PM after it, much like Hitler became Chancellor after ‘32 election.
But what science will determine which red lines are in Self interest, and which are In the National interest? No science will decide this, it will just be who spins the best.
“Really pleased to see the Yazidi girl and the Congolese doctor win the Nobel Peace prize. The suffering of women in war is often overlooked and it is really good to see those trying to do something about it being honoured for their efforts.
It is, I think, a little bit too easy for women in the West to focus on the issues they face while ignoring the very much worse brutality endured by nameless women in far away countries. The Yazidis in particular have suffered appallingly - being subject to genocidal brutality by IS scum - and too many of those who make a big show of claiming how they are on the side of the oppressed have turned their faces away from this forgotten minority.”
No-one picked up who I might be referring to in the last sentence.
Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.
Opposing Jeremy Corbyn could make you one of many political affiliations, many non Blairites here do. Repeating Jeremy Corbyn is an anti semite has nothing to do with your hypocritical criticism of Boris.
And now you’ve stopped making any sense at all.
Only a couple of posts back I pointed out that it was your criticism of Boris I was pointing out as hypocritical.
"Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite"
Is not an answer... probably explains part of the centrists electoral problem but it certainly isn't an answer to my post....
Yep, you’re making no sense at all. Are you saying that pointing out Corbyn is an anti-Semite and that Johnson is a friend to racists makes me hypocritical because I am an anti-Semite who is a friend to racists?
I'm not exactly sure what you are struggling with but would it helped if I played along for a second and said Boris and Corbyn are the world's worst people?
It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.
This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
But I do criticise Blair for that. And for his timidity on the domestic front. He spent too much time second guessing the Daily Mail. If he had trusted voters more he could have achieved so much more.
We do agree on the latter part but it is your holier than thou attitude about those on the left and right of you when a large part of your Boris criticism consisted of a close relationship to a bad US president that centrist Blair can be criticised for much more strongly. It isn't you being a centrist I have a problem with, you are closer to me politically than all the Tories on here for example. It is the purer than the driven snow rhetoric you imply with your evil left and right speeches that doesn't met up to reality when we look at those in the centre who are just as (or more) guilty as well.
I'm not exactly sure what you are struggling with but would it helped if I played along for a second and said Boris and Corbyn are the world's worst people?
It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.
This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
But I do criticise Blair for that. And for his timidity on the domestic front. He spent too much time second guessing the Daily Mail. If he had trusted voters more he could have achieved so much more.
Yes, I agree. In particular I think the standard rate income tax cut was a colossal mistake. I never met a single voter who expressed pleasure about that, let alone changing their votes, and it went against the grain of what most supporters wanted the party to prioritise. (Yes, I voted for it, since defeating a Budget is tantamount to bringing down the Government, but...)
On deselection, I think that Corbynsceptic MPs who vote to bring down the Government will be pretty safe - the centre of gravity in most CLPs is to shrug off dissent of the leadership but not active collaboration with the Conservatives, especially over Brexit.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
Nicola Sturgeon on Marr says she will set out her position on indyref2 after the conclusion of May's negotiations with the EU on any Deal in October and November
Miss Cyclefree, your comment on women in the West focusing on minor or even nonsensical matters (yes, 'Wage Gap', you) whilst seeming less concerned by far more obvious and serious matters overseas is spot on.
Is the penalty for being married whilst raped in Iran still being stoned to death? For that matter, is the penalty for being homosexual whilst alive to be executed (in Saudi Arabia as well, I think)?
Not to mention the gay concentration camp in Chechnya.
But hey, we've apparently outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter. (If my skimming of the Graham Linehan case is correct).
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
In that case the Brexityoons will be falling over themselves to offer Indyfref II to settle the matter once and for all, right?
Miss Cyclefree, your comment on women in the West focusing on minor or even nonsensical matters (yes, 'Wage Gap', you) whilst seeming less concerned by far more obvious and serious matters overseas is spot on.
Is the penalty for being married whilst raped in Iran still being stoned to death? For that matter, is the penalty for being homosexual whilst alive to be executed (in Saudi Arabia as well, I think)?
Not to mention the gay concentration camp in Chechnya.
But hey, we've apparently outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter. (If my skimming of the Graham Linehan case is correct).
Are you suggesting that women or 'women' have outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter?
Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.
Opposing Jeremy Corbyn couldwith your hypocritical criticism of Boris.
And now you’ve stopped making any sense at all.
Only a couple of posts back I pointed out that it was your criticism of Boris I was pointing out as hypocritical.
"Jeremy Corbyn is an Anti-Semite"
Is not an answer... probably explains part of the centrists electoral problem but it certainly isn't an answer to my post....
Yep, you’re making noacists?
I'm not exactly sure what you are struggling with but would it helped if I played along for a second and said Boris and Corbyn are the world's worst people?
It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.
This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
But I do criticise Blair for that. And for his timidity on the domestic front. He spent too much time second guessing the Daily Mail. If he had trusted voters more he could have achieved so much more.
We do agree on the latter part but it is your holier than thou attitude about those on the left and right of you when a large part of your Boris criticism consisted of a close relationship to a bad US president that centrist Blair can be criticised for much more strongly. It isn't you being a centrist I have a problem with, you are closer to me politically than all the Tories on here for example. It is the purer than the driven snow rhetoric you imply with your evil left and right speeches that doesn't met up to reality when we look at those in the centre who are just as (or more) guilty as well.
I am not in the centre. I am a social democrat. I understand all parties, governments and leaders are flawed. My opposition to Corbyn and the far left did not begin in 2015. It began as soon as I became politically engaged in the 1980s. If you spend decades choosing to stand shoulder to shoulder with anti-Semites while proclaiming you are virulently and uncomptomisingly opposed to all forms of racism expect to be called out on it.
I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.
For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon
I totally agree. However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn. As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.
According to Yougov the Tories do worse under Hunt, Javid, Gove and Mogg against Corbyn than they do under Boris where they tie Labour.
Survation last year also had the Tories under Boris doing better than under Hammond and Rudd but May and Davis doing better against Corbyn than Boris
Their was an Opinion poll in the Observer this morning taken after the Tory party conference:-
"Among voters at large, almost twice as many (32%) think May is the best person to run the Conservative party compared with Johnson, who is preferred by 17%.
Among Tory voters, the gap between the two is far more clearly in May’s favour, with 62% thinking she is best to lead the party, compared with 15% who believe Johnson would be better.
When asked about their individual qualities, voters prefer May to Johnson on almost all counts, with Conservative voters again backing her by higher margins than supporters of all parties"
Doesn't support your frequently aired view about the popularity of Johnson does it? I think comparisons with the liberal Johnson that ran for Mayor of London years ago are past their sell-by date, we all know a great deal more about him these days and most people don't like what they see.
It is head to head polls of Tory voteshare v Labour under Johnson that matter and on those he does better than any other Tory contenders albeit no better thsn May
I see, your polls are better than mine, hey ho! Have there been any such head-to-head polls since the conference? If not I would say that this Opinium poll is more relevant than those taken weeks or months ago, you just don't like the findings.
Events are moving quickly which is precisely why it's nonsense for people to hark back to the mayoral contests as evidence of how Johnson would be popular in the country. He's a busted flush now that voters can see him for what he really is.
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
The same could be said of Corbyn’s Labour ..... “Oh, Jews / Zionists” ...... but if a party can turn on one minority group whose votes were once guaranteed, then all minorities should be worried. And we are all a member of some minority.
Nicola Sturgeon on Marr says she will set out her position on indyref2 after the conclusion of May's negotiations with the EU on any Deal in October and November
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
The same could be said of Corbyn’s Labour ..... “Oh, Jews / Zionists” ...... but if a party can turn on one minority group whose votes were once guaranteed, then all minorities should be worried. And we are all a member of some minority.
Yup, we just get lots of microagressions now... Government is being nowhere near tough enough on a whole host of areas. It's transgender recognition stuff is appalling.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
In that case the Brexityoons will be falling over themselves to offer Indyfref II to settle the matter once and for all, right?
It will be up to the the SNP "government" to offer it. Will they?
I expect Putin would like them to be, just to be irritating and promote confusion.
Putin's preferred outcome at this point, and he can usually rely on the tories to give him what he wants, is a massively chaotic no deal Brexit.
His motive isn't just to be irritating though. An important strategic element of the Putin Project is to depict other countries as degenerate cesspits in the final stages of disintegration. This message is relentlessly drilled home in the Russophone media so Western audiences are largely oblivious to it. It's done to discourage emigration which is crippling Russian and exacerbates its terrible demographics as it is the young and educated who are leaving. Some of Putin's more sibylline deeds make more sense when viewed in this context.
Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.
I'm not exactly sure what you are struggling with but would it helped if I played along for a second and said Boris and Corbyn are the world's worst people?
It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.
This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
But I do criticise Blair for that. And for his timidity on the domestic front. He spent too much time second guessing the Daily Mail. If he had trusted voters more he could have achieved so much more.
We do agree on the latter part but it is your holier than thou attitude about those on the left and right of you when a large part of your Boris criticism consisted of a close relationship to a bad US president that centrist Blair can be criticised for much more strongly. It isn't you being a centrist I have a problem with, you are closer to me politically than all the Tories on here for example. It is the purer than the driven snow rhetoric you imply with your evil left and right speeches that doesn't met up to reality when we look at those in the centre who are just as (or more) guilty as well.
I am not in the centre. I am a social democrat. I understand all parties, governments and leaders are flawed. My opposition to Corbyn and the far left did not begin in 2015. It began as soon as I became politically engaged in the 1980s. If you spend decades choosing to stand shoulder to shoulder with anti-Semites while proclaiming you are virulently and uncomptomisingly opposed to all forms of racism expect to be called out on it.
Then expect the same back, hostile environment, control immigration mugs. Don't give me this anti racism rubbish, the right of the Labour party gleefully rushed off into populist anti immigration rhetoric. The holier than thou attitude is thoroughly undeserved and a massive turn off for the voters.
I'm not exactly sure what you are struggling with but would it helped if I played along for a second and said Boris and Corbyn are the world's worst people?
It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.
This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
But I do criticise Blair for that. And for his timidity on the domestic front. He spent too much time second guessing the Daily Mail. If he had trusted voters more he could have achieved so much more.
Yes, I agree. In particular I think the standard rate income tax cut was a colossal mistake. I never met a single voter who expressed pleasure about that, let alone changing their votes, and it went against the grain of what most supporters wanted the party to prioritise. (Yes, I voted for it, since defeating a Budget is tantamount to bringing down the Government, but...)
On deselection, I think that Corbynsceptic MPs who vote to bring down the Government will be pretty safe - the centre of gravity in most CLPs is to shrug off dissent of the leadership but not active collaboration with the Conservatives, especially over Brexit.
The fiscal drag of holding down the personal allowance had a far greater negative impact than the cut had a positive impact for anyone not at a middle income or higher.
“Really pleased to see the Yazidi girl and the Congolese doctor win the Nobel Peace prize. The suffering of women in war is often overlooked and it is really good to see those trying to do something about it being honoured for their efforts.
It is, I think, a little bit too easy for women in the West to focus on the issues they face while ignoring the very much worse brutality endured by nameless women in far away countries. The Yazidis in particular have suffered appallingly - being subject to genocidal brutality by IS scum - and too many of those who make a big show of claiming how they are on the side of the oppressed have turned their faces away from this forgotten minority.”
No-one picked up who I might be referring to in the last sentence.
Slightly OT but relevant to Nobel Prizes and downtrodden women the film 'The Wife' is well worth seeing. Far from perfect but a compelling performance from Glenn Close
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
In that case the Brexityoons will be falling over themselves to offer Indyfref II to settle the matter once and for all, right?
It will be up to the the SNP "government" to offer it. Will they?
Really? I'd gathered that the consensus on here (not conclusive or particularly relevant on matters Scottish admittedly) was that it would have no legal weight & would be kicked out by Westminster. Has that changed?
Miss Cyclefree, your comment on women in the West focusing on minor or even nonsensical matters (yes, 'Wage Gap', you) whilst seeming less concerned by far more obvious and serious matters overseas is spot on.
Is the penalty for being married whilst raped in Iran still being stoned to death? For that matter, is the penalty for being homosexual whilst alive to be executed (in Saudi Arabia as well, I think)?
Not to mention the gay concentration camp in Chechnya.
But hey, we've apparently outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter. (If my skimming of the Graham Linehan case is correct).
My comment was about some women activists here - though I do not wish to diminish the seriousness of sexual crimes against women in the West merely because such crimes are not as bad as those perpetrated by IS - but also against the current Labour leader who makes a great play at his recent conference of saying how he is on the side of the oppressed but ostentatiously refused to stand behind the oppressed Yazidis.
Still, in being a shameless hypocrite Corbyn is no different to any other politician.
Miss Cyclefree, your comment on women in the West focusing on minor or even nonsensical matters (yes, 'Wage Gap', you) whilst seeming less concerned by far more obvious and serious matters overseas is spot on.
Is the penalty for being married whilst raped in Iran still being stoned to death? For that matter, is the penalty for being homosexual whilst alive to be executed (in Saudi Arabia as well, I think)?
Not to mention the gay concentration camp in Chechnya.
But hey, we've apparently outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter. (If my skimming of the Graham Linehan case is correct).
Are you suggesting that women or 'women' have outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter?
Those nefarious 'feminists', why are they concerning themselves about domestic matters when there are pressing international issues.
And on a completely unrelated note isn't it terrible how in Labour's conference included some attention on international issues when there are pressing domestic issues?
It is like these people manage to do everything wrong...
The same could be said of Corbyn’s Labour ..... “Oh, Jews / Zionists” ......
“No doubt the Jews aren't a lovable people; I don't care about them myself” When the Tories point out examples of anti semitism in Britain, I certainly listen to them. After all, Tory Party gave Britain an anti Semitic Prime Minister in Neville Chamberlain, they should know what they are talking about. That’s Chamberlain I quoted at start there. what does such opinion lead his government to do to Jewish refugees? In game of top trumps, on anti Semitic evidence alone Neville Chamberlain and his Tory Government blows Jeremy Corbyn right out the park.
The spark under this latest bonfire of anti semetism in British politics appears to have been Ken Livingston crucifying himself on claim Hitler was a Zionist. the first bit of what he said Livingston is actually right, Hitler urged Jews to leave Germany, but a fair minded person mentioning this history would add where should they go, why should they leave their homeland without their wealth! On the second bit Livingston is also right, Hitler arranged for more than 50 thousand to emigrate to Palestine, encouraging them by allowing Jews who left for Palestine to transfer a significant portion of their assets there, those who left for other countries had to leave much of what they owned behind. But to conclude from this Hitler was therefore a Zionist is not only weak on supporting logic, it betrays disrespect for Zionism with desire to tie Zionism and nazism together on this flimsy evidence. Because it overlooks the rest of the overwhelming evidence telling us Hitlers regime regarded the Zionist movement as a significant part of the world Jewish conspiracy they had dedicated their lives to destroying. The more logical explanation for helping Jewish emigration to Palestine, it would mitigate international criticism of their anti-semitic measures, this makes more sense as it fits perfectly with political game playing Hitlers regime played throughout the thirties. It takes us to a conclusion quite opposite to Hitler being a Zionist. Nor did Hitler “go mad” as such, if Ken was half the historian he thinks he is he would know the Germans fought the war on speed (methamphetamine) and mention Hitler himself ended up an irrational junkie, destroyed by what we call oxy (known as Eukodol in Germany at the time). About a quarter of the Jews in Germany fled this victimisation, making themselves refugees. Livingstone, all Labour members, and all the rest of us Briton’s too would do better to talk about and openly acknowledge Britain’s reaction to these refugees, kindertransport separating children from parents Trump Fashion. At the crucial moment I believe Britain could have done more, it didn’t because of anti semitism in the Tory party, and perhaps the ruling classes love in with the Nazis.
My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they can say it was really close but it was her fault.
In reality, little has changed. May is trying to go for an all-UK customs union. The problem with that plan is that it is incompatible with the CETA deal that Barnier and Tusk want. If the UK remains in the customs union as a backstop, the UK will have to stay aligned with SM regulations or it does nothing for the NI border. It basically allows the UK to remain in the SM without observing FOM or payment of money.
Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.
Chequers is completely off the table.
Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.
The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem.
May's problems will then be:
1. She has agreed to permanent UK membership of the customs union unless the EU release us. 2. It will be impossible to claim that the EU will release us, because under CETA it will not be possible and that will be what is in the political declaration. The customs partnership will not appear in the political declaration, so it will be impossible for May to claim that this will solve the backstop. The only way the backstop could ever be released is to go back to the NI only backstop and institute CETA for GB only. 3. If she caves on a NI only backstop, the DUP will remove her. They may well remove her for an all-UK backstop as well, as it appears to involve a regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
My point being that May has real problems even with her current sellout. It does not provide a path to a deal. It would really only work if the EU accepted Chequers as the basis for the trade agreement. I am sure many will say 'it will be fudged' but there is very little that can dress this up, which is why I predict it would be defeated in Parliament. It will basically be a road to another cliff-edge in less than two years time.
I agree with a lot of this. My main difference of opinion is that neither May nor the EU are that interested in THE deal. They want to get the Withdrawal Agreement out the way and move to transition. The EU so the UK leaves with the minimum damage to them and the UK to avoid immediate chaos. This is all about getting through the next six months without major damage.
Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.
I'm not exactly sure what you are struggling with but would it helped if I played along for a second and said Boris and Corbyn are the world's worst people?
It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.
This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
But I do criticise Blair for that. And for his timidity on the domestic front. He spent too much time second guessing the Daily Mail. If he had trusted voters more he could have achieved so much more.
We do agree on the latter part but itust as (or more) guilty as well.
I am not in the centre. I am a social democrat. I understand all parties, governments and leaders are flawed. My opposition to Corbyn and the far left did not begin in 2015. It began as soon as I became politically engaged in the 1980s. If you spend decades choosing to stand shoulder to shoulder with anti-Semites while proclaiming you are virulently and uncomptomisingly opposed to all forms of racism expect to be called out on it.
Then expect the same back, hostile environment, control immigration mugs. Don't give me this anti racism rubbish, the right of the Labour party gleefully rushed off into populist anti immigration rhetoric. The holier than thou attitude is thoroughly undeserved and a massive turn off for the voters.
Again, calling out Corbyn for being an anti-Semite does not mean agreeing with the Hostile Environment policy or the demonisation of immigrants.
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
The same could be said of Corbyn’s Labour ..... “Oh, Jews / Zionists” ...... but if a party can turn on one minority group whose votes were once guaranteed, then all minorities should be worried. And we are all a member of some minority.
Shouldn't one oppose discrimination as a bad thing in itself rather than in self interest?
Listening to Nicola on Marr she just waffles and seems to be in denial how bad the nhs and education are in Scotland
To be fair to Nicola & the SNP, the NHS and education are way, way better in Scotland than in Wales (as judged by any independent metric).
If you are looking for the place which has the shittiest education system in the UK, and the poorest health service, then you just need to open your front door in Llandudno & look at what Welsh Labour has achieved since 1999.
“Really pleased to see the Yazidi girl and the Congolese doctor win the Nobel Peace prize. The suffering of women in war is often overlooked and it is really good to see those trying to do something about it being honoured for their efforts.
It is, I think, a little bit too easy for women in the West to focus on the issues they face while ignoring the very much worse brutality endured by nameless women in far away countries. The Yazidis in particular have suffered appallingly - being subject to genocidal brutality by IS scum - and too many of those who make a big show of claiming how they are on the side of the oppressed have turned their faces away from this forgotten minority.”
No-one picked up who I might be referring to in the last sentence.
Slightly OT but relevant to Nobel Prizes and downtrodden women the film 'The Wife' is well worth seeing. Far from perfect but a compelling performance from Glenn Close
Yes, Oscar-bait from Close, but its central premise is implausible piffle. Not recommended.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
In that case the Brexityoons will be falling over themselves to offer Indyfref II to settle the matter once and for all, right?
It will be up to the the SNP "government" to offer it. Will they?
Really? I'd gathered that the consensus on here (not conclusive or particularly relevant on matters Scottish admittedly) was that it would have no legal weight & would be kicked out by Westminster. Has that changed?
Miss Cyclefree, your comment on women in the West focusing on minor or even nonsensical matters (yes, 'Wage Gap', you) whilst seeming less concerned by far more obvious and serious matters overseas is spot on.
Is the penalty for being married whilst raped in Iran still being stoned to death? For that matter, is the penalty for being homosexual whilst alive to be executed (in Saudi Arabia as well, I think)?
Not to mention the gay concentration camp in Chechnya.
But hey, we've apparently outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter. (If my skimming of the Graham Linehan case is correct).
My comment was about some women activists here - though I do not wish to diminish the seriousness of sexual crimes against women in the West merely because such crimes are not as bad as those perpetrated by IS - but also against the current Labour leader who makes a great play at his recent conference of saying how he is on the side of the oppressed but ostentatiously refused to stand behind the oppressed Yazidis.
Still, in being a shameless hypocrite Corbyn is no different to any other politician.
There's a difference between sympathising with victims of oppression and supporting military intervention. I don't say the latter is always wrong, but there's nothing inconsistent (or shamelessly hypocritical) in, for instance, saying that the carnage in the DR Congo is terrible and still opposing sending an expeditionary force to intervene. Corbyn, for better or worse, nearly always opposes military intervention. I've come to feel that this is the right policy more often than not. In particular, I don't think we should have intervened in Syria, horrific though ISIS is, because in the long run I think we'd have killed more people for less benefit than staying out.
Listening to Nicola on Marr she just waffles and seems to be in denial how bad the nhs and education are in Scotland
To be fair to Nicola & the SNP, the NHS and education are way, way better in Scotland than in Wales (as judged by any independent metric).
If you are looking for the place which has the shittiest education system in the UK, and the poorest health service, then you just need to open your front door in Llandudno & look at what Welsh Labour has achieved since 1999.
Well I absolutely agree but it is hardly difficult to be in front of Labour governed Wales
A significant part of the Tories problem was discussed on yesterday’s thread, with some very nasty experiences being recalled. What with that and the treatment of the Windrush generation, and indeed other maltreatment of immigrants Mrs May’s party is earning the title of the Nasty Party all over again. It might well be that people think it doesn’t apply to me, it’s benefit scroungers, ‘oh immigrants’ but the more a Government shows itself to be ‘Nasty’, the more Martin Niemöller’s poem applies.
The same could be said of Corbyn’s Labour ..... “Oh, Jews / Zionists” ...... but if a party can turn on one minority group whose votes were once guaranteed, then all minorities should be worried. And we are all a member of some minority.
Shouldn't one oppose discrimination as a bad thing in itself rather than in self interest?
Of course.
I was merely pointing out that the Niemoller approach could apply just as easily to Labour as to the Tories.
The sad fact is that a lot of people, particularly the political active, seem to be more interested in anti-racism as a way of proclaiming their virtue and attacking their ppponents than in concern for those who suffer the effects of racism. And, even more sadly, if the suffererers of racism are not their supporters or are not approved of for some other reason then a lot of self-professed anti-racists don’t give a toss about them.
Miss Cyclefree, your comment on women in the West focusing on minor or even nonsensical matters (yes, 'Wage Gap', you) whilst seeming less concerned by far more obvious and serious matters overseas is spot on.
Is the penalty for being married whilst raped in Iran still being stoned to death? For that matter, is the penalty for being homosexual whilst alive to be executed (in Saudi Arabia as well, I think)?
Not to mention the gay concentration camp in Chechnya.
But hey, we've apparently outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter. (If my skimming of the Graham Linehan case is correct).
My comment was about some women activists here - though I do not wish to diminish the seriousness of sexual crimes against women in the West merely because such crimes are not as bad as those perpetrated by IS - but also against the current Labour leader who makes a great play at his recent conference of saying how he is on the side of the oppressed but ostentatiously refused to stand behind the oppressed Yazidis.
Still, in being a shameless hypocrite Corbyn is no different to any other politician.
There's a difference between sympathising with victims of oppression and supporting military intervention. I don't say the latter is always wrong, but there's nothing inconsistent (or shamelessly hypocritical) in, for instance, saying that the carnage in the DR Congo is terrible and still opposing sending an expeditionary force to intervene. Corbyn, for better or worse, nearly always opposes military intervention. I've come to feel that this is the right policy more often than not. In particular, I don't think we should have intervened in Syria, horrific though ISIS is, because in the long run I think we'd have killed more people for less benefit than staying out.
We didn't intervene in Syria against Assad, all we did was a few bombing raids on ISIS while Russia has intervened heavily on behalf of Assad who is now near to a brutal final crushing of the Syrian rebels
Mr. Divvie, it seems Linehan received a fine for using a wrong pronoun (forget which way around it was) about a transsexual on Twitter. As I said, I haven't been keeping tabs on the story, but that seems to be the case.
Not a huge surprise, even with the obvious potential implications for another Sindyref.
Surprised the SNP would want a second vote on the terms of the deal......might set a precedent.....
I have no doubt that if Yes won then they would have faced calls for a confirmatory vote regardless, but they surely would now and they must have decided to accept that.
Your post assumed that opposing Jeremy Corbyn makes me a Blairite, whereas I actually oppose him because he is an anti-Semite who enables the Tory right.
I'm not exactly sure what you are struggling with but would it helped if I played along for a second and said Boris and Corbyn are the world's worst people?
It is hypocritical to criticise Boris for his closeness to a bad US president whilst not acknowledging that Blair was much worse in this regard.
This is still true even if Corbyn and Boris are far worse than Hitler.
But I do criticise Blair for that. And for his timidity on the domestic front. He spent too much time second guessing the Daily Mail. If he had trusted voters more he could have achieved so much more.
We do agree on the latter part but itust as (or more) guilty as well.
I am not in the centre. I am a social democrat. I understand all parties, governments and leaders are flawed. My opposition to Corbyn and the far left did not begin in 2015. It began as soon as I became politically engaged in the 1980s. If you spend decades choosing to stand shoulder to shoulder with anti-Semites while proclaiming you are virulently and uncomptomisingly opposed to all forms of racism expect to be called out on it.
Then expect the same back, hostile environment, control immigration mugs. Don't give me this anti racism rubbish, the right of the Labour party gleefully rushed off into populist anti immigration rhetoric. The holier than thou attitude is thoroughly undeserved and a massive turn off for the voters.
Again, calling out Corbyn for being an anti-Semite does not mean agreeing with the Hostile Environment policy or the demonisation of immigrants.
Again, repeating Corbyn is an anti-Semite doesn't somehow invalidate my point. Your politics leads to racism and discrimination, that is why I call them out and oppose them, you can continue to play you whataboutary game but I am not interested.
Listening to Nicola on Marr she just waffles and seems to be in denial how bad the nhs and education are in Scotland
To be fair to Nicola & the SNP, the NHS and education are way, way better in Scotland than in Wales (as judged by any independent metric).
If you are looking for the place which has the shittiest education system in the UK, and the poorest health service, then you just need to open your front door in Llandudno & look at what Welsh Labour has achieved since 1999.
Well I absolutely agree but it is hardly difficult to be in front of Labour governed Wales
I agree that it is not difficult to be in front of Welsh Labour.
This makes it all the more disheartening that the opposition parties in Wales have failed to mount a serious challenge and provide an alternative government.
The SNP did successfully do this in Scotland. They deserve a lot of credit for that.
The future in Wales would be much brighter if the opposition parties could do to Llafur Cymru what the SNP did to SLAB.
Listening to Nicola on Marr she just waffles and seems to be in denial how bad the nhs and education are in Scotland
To be fair to Nicola & the SNP, the NHS and education are way, way better in Scotland than in Wales (as judged by any independent metric).
If you are looking for the place which has the shittiest education system in the UK, and the poorest health service, then you just need to open your front door in Llandudno & look at what Welsh Labour has achieved since 1999.
I believe NHS Scotland beats NHS England by most independent metrics. Education is a bigger tanker with a larger turning circle. However we can see the commitment to education in Scotland of the main opposition party in Holyrood when it votes down legislation that it had in its own manifesto, just to stuff the EssEnnPee.
Though as the SNP have made clear if Scotland again votes Remain and the UK votes Leave the SNP would ensure it only backed a People's Vote if that was grounds for indyref2.
However given EUref2 is only likely if No Deal and polling shows even England would vote for Remain over No Deal that is unlikely to be an issue
I think Nicola Sturgeon is the most effective politician operating at the moment. I wish she wasn't working to break up the UK, but can't fault the way she is going about it.
Miss Cyclefree, your comment on women in the West focusing on minor or even nonsensical matters (yes, 'Wage Gap', you) whilst seeming less concerned by far more obvious and serious matters overseas is spot on.
Is the penalty for being married whilst raped in Iran still being stoned to death? For that matter, is the penalty for being homosexual whilst alive to be executed (in Saudi Arabia as well, I think)?
Not to mention the gay concentration camp in Chechnya.
But hey, we've apparently outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter. (If my skimming of the Graham Linehan case is correct).
My comment was about some women activists here - though I do not wish to diminish the seriousness of sexual crimes against women in the West merely because such crimes are not as bad as those perpetrated by IS - but also against the current Labour leader who makes a great play at his recent conference of saying how he is on the side of the oppressed but ostentatiously refused to stand behind the oppressed Yazidis.
Still, in being a shameless hypocrite Corbyn is no different to any other politician.
There's a difference between sympathising with victims of oppression and supporting military intervention. I don't say the latter is always wrong, but there's nothing inconsistent (or shamelessly hypocritical) in, for instance, saying that the carnage in the DR Congo is terrible and still opposing sending an expeditionary force to intervene. Corbyn, for better or worse, nearly always opposes military intervention. I've come to feel that this is the right policy more often than not. In particular, I don't think we should have intervened in Syria, horrific though ISIS is, because in the long run I think we'd have killed more people for less benefit than staying out.
I agree with you that intervention is very often not the answer.
But Corbyn went further. The organisation he chaired claimed that Yazidi suffering was invented or exaggerated. That was wrong and morally despicable. You can argue that intervention would make a very bad situation worse. But to deny the facts about human suffering in order to justify your own pre-existing policy? Yuck.
If his claim to be on the side of the oppressed means something, what does it mean? Nice words? Providing refuge? What?
Did Corbyn suggest, for instance, that Yazidis should be given priority for asylum in the UK?
Easy to send a nice tweet now that a prize has been won. But that’s meaningless waffle.
I quite like Nicola and remember I have strong family ties with Scotland, my wife of course being a Scot, and I lived in the borders and Edinburgh from my primary schools days to my marriage in Lossiemouth in 1964, coming here to North Wales in summer 1965.
If I was still in Scotland I would vote SNP but for the Union Scon. I have recently had experience of the NHS in Scotland when one of our family was admitted to hospital following a fall and the staffing was dreadful. We went into the hospital, went upto the wards, walking endlessly down the wards with no nurses in view and only one cleaner. No staff on reception, no nurses at the nursing stations and our relative complaining of how the staff nurse was having to make their toast, no one else being available.
Just walking through the hospital showed how grossly undermanned it is
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
Not if it was before next March and as I said if No Deal in November the Commons and Lords would likely vote for an EUref2 in the New Year before the Brexit date at the end of March 2019 in which case Remain would almost certainly win across the UK and we would stay in the EU on current terms
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
In that case the Brexityoons will be falling over themselves to offer Indyfref II to settle the matter once and for all, right?
It will be up to the the SNP "government" to offer it. Will they?
Really? I'd gathered that the consensus on here (not conclusive or particularly relevant on matters Scottish admittedly) was that it would have no legal weight & would be kicked out by Westminster. Has that changed?
I'm not sure it matters whether or not Johnson is popular. His party have become a lunatic fringe of anti Europeanism and he is considered the best salesman of that ideology.
For that reason I'd expect him to become leader fairly soon
I totally agree. However I also think if he becomes PM he will easily beat Corbyn. As all the Conservatives will unite behind him ,whatever they are saying now.
My take is that Johnson as Tory leader is Corbyn's best (and only) chance of becoming PM.The vast tracts of disenfranchised centrist voters are as likely to vote to stop Johnson as Corbyn.
According to Yougov the Tories do worse under Hunt, Javid, Gove and Mogg against Corbyn than they do under Boris where they tie Labour.
Survation last year also had the Tories under Boris doing better than under Hammond and Rudd but May and Davis doing better against Corbyn than Boris
Their was an Opinion poll in the Observer this morning taken after the Tory party conference:-
"Among voters at large, almost twice as many (32%) think May is the best person to run the Conservative party compared with Johnson, who is preferred by 17%.
Among Tory voters, the gap between the two is far more clearly in May’s favour, with 62% thinking she is best to lead the party, compared with 15% who believe Johnson would be better.
When asked about their individual qualities, voters prefer May to Johnson on almost all counts, with Conservative voters again backing her by higher margins than supporters of all parties"
Doesn't support your frequently aired view about the popularity of Johnson does it? I think comparisons with the liberal Johnson that ran for Mayor of London years ago are past their sell-by date, we all know a great deal more about him these days and most people don't like what they see.
It is head to head polls of Tory voteshare v Labour under Johnson that matter and on those he does better than any other Tory contenders albeit no better thsn May
I see, your polls are better than mine, hey ho! Have there been any such head-to-head polls since the conference? If not I would say that this Opinium poll is more relevant than those taken weeks or months ago, you just don't like the findings.
Events are moving quickly which is precisely why it's nonsense for people to hark back to the mayoral contests as evidence of how Johnson would be popular in the country. He's a busted flush now that voters can see him for what he really is.
Hunt has a worse net approval rating than Johnson if you want to go solely on that, though there is some evidence Javid has improved his
Listening to Nicola on Marr she just waffles and seems to be in denial how bad the nhs and education are in Scotland
To be fair to Nicola & the SNP, the NHS and education are way, way better in Scotland than in Wales (as judged by any independent metric).
If you are looking for the place which has the shittiest education system in the UK, and the poorest health service, then you just need to open your front door in Llandudno & look at what Welsh Labour has achieved since 1999.
Well I absolutely agree but it is hardly difficult to be in front of Labour governed Wales
I agree that it is not difficult to be in front of Welsh Labour.
This makes it all the more disheartening that the opposition parties in Wales have failed to mount a serious challenge and provide an alternative government.
The SNP did successfully do this in Scotland. They deserve a lot of credit for that.
The future in Wales would be much brighter if the opposition parties could do to Llafur Cymru what the SNP did to SLAB.
Wales is politically depressing and has been for years
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
Not if it was before next March and as I said if No Deal in November the Commons and Lords would likely vote for an EUref2 in the New Year before the Brexit date at the end of March 2019 in which case Remain would almost certainly win across the UK and we would stay in the EU on current terms
"we would stay in the EU on current terms" The EU would have something to say about that.
Listening to Nicola on Marr she just waffles and seems to be in denial how bad the nhs and education are in Scotland
To be fair to Nicola & the SNP, the NHS and education are way, way better in Scotland than in Wales (as judged by any independent metric).
If you are looking for the place which has the shittiest education system in the UK, and the poorest health service, then you just need to open your front door in Llandudno & look at what Welsh Labour has achieved since 1999.
I believe NHS Scotland beats NHS England by most independent metrics.
Including spending. £2,500/head vs £2,200. I suppose you could call that the 'Union Dividend' or, 'Uniondivvie' for short.
“Really pleased to see the Yazidi girl and the Congolese doctor win the Nobel Peace prize. The suffering of women in war is often overlooked and it is really good to see those trying to do something about it being honoured for their efforts.
It is, I think, a little bit too easy for women in the West to focus on the issues they face while ignoring the very much worse brutality endured by nameless women in far away countries. The Yazidis in particular have suffered appallingly - being subject to genocidal brutality by IS scum - and too many of those who make a big show of claiming how they are on the side of the oppressed have turned their faces away from this forgotten minority.”
No-one picked up who I might be referring to in the last sentence.
Slightly OT but relevant to Nobel Prizes and downtrodden women the film 'The Wife' is well worth seeing. Far from perfect but a compelling performance from Glenn Close
Yes, Oscar-bait from Close, but its central premise is implausible piffle. Not recommended.
Better than piffle but seriously flawed. Nonetheless performances like that of Glenn Close in an American film are sufficiently rare at the moment to make it worth seeing.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
In that case the Brexityoons will be falling over themselves to offer Indyfref II to settle the matter once and for all, right?
It will be up to the the SNP "government" to offer it. Will they?
Really? I'd gathered that the consensus on here (not conclusive or particularly relevant on matters Scottish admittedly) was that it would have no legal weight & would be kicked out by Westminster. Has that changed?
According to Panelbase today the SNP and Greens will lose their majority in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Sturgeon will need Davidson's support to stay First Minister
“Really pleased to see the Yazidi girl and the Congolese doctor win the Nobel Peace prize. The suffering of women in war is often overlooked and it is really good to see those trying to do something about it being honoured for their efforts.
It is, I think, a little bit too easy for women in the West to focus on the issues they face while ignoring the very much worse brutality endured by nameless women in far away countries. The Yazidis in particular have suffered appallingly - being subject to genocidal brutality by IS scum - and too many of those who make a big show of claiming how they are on the side of the oppressed have turned their faces away from this forgotten minority.”
No-one picked up who I might be referring to in the last sentence.
Slightly OT but relevant to Nobel Prizes and downtrodden women the film 'The Wife' is well worth seeing. Far from perfect but a compelling performance from Glenn Close
Yes, Oscar-bait from Close, but its central premise is implausible piffle. Not recommended.
Better than piffle but seriously flawed. Nonetheless performances like that of Glenn Close in an American film are sufficiently rare at the moment to make it worth seeing.
Some of the stuff around the Nobel is actually quite funny (like the moment in which a flunky returns the medal which has been petulantly thrown from a car window). Otherwise, it depends upon us believing that:
Ivy League universities ran creative writing classes in the 1950s - they didn't. Self-regarding idiots were appointed as professors in Ivy League universities before they'd turned 30 - they weren't. Said self-regarding idiots would be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature - they wouldn't be.
I agree with you that intervention is very often not the answer.
But Corbyn went further. The organisation he chaired claimed that Yazidi suffering was invented or exaggerated. That was wrong and morally despicable. You can argue that intervention would make a very bad situation worse. But to deny the facts about human suffering in order to justify your own pre-existing policy? Yuck.
If his claim to be on the side of the oppressed means something, what does it mean? Nice words? Providing refuge? What?
Did Corbyn suggest, for instance, that Yazidis should be given priority for asylum in the UK?
Easy to send a nice tweet now that a prize has been won. But that’s meaningless waffle.
There's a reasonably balanced piece here which did urge him to break links with the Stop the War group:
Like the author, I think they're too keen to condemn every war and downplay any group embraced by the US, and although I don't follow them closely I can well imagine that they did exactly that about the Yazidis. That said, he's not their chairman now and hasn't been since 2015, and I don't think he has to give a running commentary on their positions or make a speech breaking with them. He'd certainly favour giving the Yazidis asylum, and it's not a question of priority over someone else - he's in favour of the most liberal asytlum policy that one could possibly want, and is often attacked for that too.
My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they
Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.
Chequers is completely off the table.
Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.
The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem.
May's problems will then be:
1. She has agreed to permanent UK membership of the customs union unless the EU release us. 2. It will be impossible to claim that the EU will release us, because under CETA it will not be possible and that will be what is in the political declaration. The customs partnership will not appear in the political declaration, so it will be impossible for May to claim that this will solve the backstop. The only way the backstop could ever be released is to go back to the NI only backstop and institute CETA for GB only. 3. If she caves on a NI only backstop, the DUP will remove her. They may well remove her for an all-UK backstop as well, as it appears to involve a regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
My point being that May has real problems even with her current sellout. It does not provide a path to a deal. It would really only work if the EU accepted Chequers as the basis for the trade agreement. I am sure many will say 'it will be fudged' but there is very little that can dress this up, which is why I predict it would be defeated in Parliament. It will basically be a road to another cliff-edge in less than two years time.
It will get through Parliament. A Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found to the Irish border issue as May is proposing to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period is basically Labour policy anyway and as it covers the whole UK the DUP cannot object and the terms of a Deal can be negotiated in the Transition Period.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Perhaps a uk wide backstop with a poison pill for both sides would be the perfect compromise.
So uk trapped in the customs Union. But in the single market without FOM and payments breaking the 4 freedoms.
That'll give both sides the perfect reason to actually want to avoid the backstop at all costs.
Could be quite an elegant solution to the whole backstop mess.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
Not if it was before next March and as I said if No Deal in November the Commons and Lords would likely vote for an EUref2 in the New Year before the Brexit date at the end of March 2019 in which case Remain would almost certainly win across the UK and we would stay in the EU on current terms
"we would stay in the EU on current terms" The EU would have something to say about that.
Not if we vote to Remain before the end of March 2019 they would not as we would not have left but still be in the EU and would thus Remain in the EU on current terms.
Austria's chief Brexit negotiator confirmed that last week
My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they
Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.
Chequers is completely off the table.
Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.
The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem.
May's problems will then be:
1. She has agreed to permanent UK membership of the customs union unless the EU release us. 2. It will be impossible to claim that the EU will release us, because under CETA it will not be possible and that will be what is in the political declaration. The customs partne 3. If she caves on a NI only backstop, the DUP will remove her. They may well remove her for an all-UK backstop as well, as it appears to involve a regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
My point being that May has real problems even with her current sellout. It does not provide a path to a deal. It would really only work if the EU accepted Chequers as the basis for the trade agreement. I am sure many will say 'it will be fudged' but there is very little that can dress this up, which is why I predict it would be defeated in Parliament. It will basically be a road to another cliff-edge in less than two years time.
It will get through Parliament. A Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found to the Irish border issue as May is proposing to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period is basically Labour policy anyway and as it covers the whole UK the DUP cannot object and the terms of a Deal can be negotiated in the Transition Period.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Perhaps a uk wide backstop with a poison pill for both sides would be the perfect compromise.
So uk trapped in the customs Union. But in the single market without FOM and payments breaking the 4 freedoms.
That'll give both sides the perfect reason to actually want to avoid the backstop at all costs.
Could be quite an elegant solution to the whole backstop mess.
What happens when the UK government decides they actually quite like being in the CU? E.g if Labour wins the next election.
Boris would be a mistake for the Tories but he is one that they are increasingly unlikely to make. My concern is that when we look up out of the Brexit trenches the strategic picture remains challenging.
After 8 years of graft the deficit is now down to a sustainable level once again but the damage done over the last decade is severe. Our debt as a share of national income has risen from below 40% to well above 80%. That means additional debt of over £400bn. We face major demographic challenges in Social Care and Health Spending over the next decade at least. We are also growing more slowly than we did for both demographic and deficit related reasons.
In the insane period up to 2008 Brown was boosting an economy that was already running hot with both an on balance sheet deficit of 3% plus a large amount of off balance sheet capital expenditure. This was obviously completely unsustainable and contributed to the severity of the crash. Without that sort of fiscal boost however our economy is more likely to grow at 2% rather than 3% or more. New money will help but it is not the answer.
So when our PM announced the end of austerity she lied. We still need another 20 years or so of austerity during which we repair the damage that the GFC did to our books, reduce the debt burden of the next generation to an acceptable level and keep a very tight rein on expenditure. Public spending will continue to grow, probably at a faster rate than in the last 8 years, but almost certainly not like what we saw in the last 2 terms of the Blair government.
There is, in my view, an element of unreality about some Tory plans for spending but given the context in which we sit Labour's plans are bordering on suicidal. Until Labour can find a better purpose than spending lots of other peoples' money or, more often, the next generation's money, it cannot be trusted with government. Our economy is simply not strong enough to survive a Labour government at present or indeed for the foreseeable future.
The personalities are less important than the context. Corbyn is an extreme example of Labour's fiscal incontinence but if he is replaced it is likely to be someone of a similar bent. Boris is somewhat flakier and less reliable than other Tories but he will be constrained to keep spending tight. Our path is set but the optimum way forward is governments willing and able to work on that path rather than indulging in expensive and damaging diversions.
National Debt as a share of GDP is lower than at the time of the 1959 election - and no higher than when the Tories lost power in 1964. Nobody was seriously suggesting at either of those elections that the nation needed 'another 20 years or so of austerity'.
“Really pleased to see the Yazidi girl and the Congolese doctor win the Nobel Peace prize. The suffering of women in war is often overlooked and it is really good to see those trying to do something about it being honoured for their efforts.
It is, I think, a little bit too easy for women in the West to focus on the issues they face while ignoring the very much worse brutality endured by nameless women in far away countries. The Yazidis in particular have suffered appallingly - being subject to genocidal brutality by IS scum - and too many of those who make a big show of claiming how they are on the side of the oppressed have turned their faces away from this forgotten minority.”
No-one picked up who I might be referring to in the last sentence.
Slightly OT but relevant to Nobel Prizes and downtrodden women the film 'The Wife' is well worth seeing. Far from perfect but a compelling performance from Glenn Close
Yes, Oscar-bait from Close, but its central premise is implausible piffle. Not recommended.
Better than piffle but seriously flawed. Nonetheless performances like that of Glenn Close in an American film are sufficiently rare at the moment to make it worth seeing.
Some of the stuff around the Nobel is actually quite funny (like the moment in which a flunky returns the medal which has been petulantly thrown from a car window). Otherwise, it depends upon us believing that:
Ivy League universities ran creative writing classes in the 1950s - they didn't. Self-regarding idiots were appointed as professors in Ivy League universities before they'd turned 30 - they weren't. Said self-regarding idiots would be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature - they wouldn't be.
If American academia is a specialist subject I can imagine why you found those things irritating but for those like me who had no such knowledge the irritations were more in its pacing and an ending which lacked the subtlety of much of the rest of the film and the uneven performance of nearly all the minor characters.
Hunt has a net negative rating with the public of -44% and with Tories of -12%.
Boris has a net negative rating with the public of -28% but a net positive rating with Tories of +9%. (p5)
Javid has a net negative rating with the public of -21% and a net negative rating with Tories of -1% (p6)
May has a net negative rating of -23% with the public but a net positive rating of +62% with Tories.
May also does better than Corbyn who has a net negative rating of -28% with the public and Cable who has a net negative rating of -27% with the public (p4-5)
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
In that case the Brexityoons will be falling over themselves to offer Indyfref II to settle the matter once and for all, right?
It will be up to the the SNP "government" to offer it. Will they?
Really? I'd gathered that the consensus on here (not conclusive or particularly relevant on matters Scottish admittedly) was that it would have no legal weight & would be kicked out by Westminster. Has that changed?
According to Panelbase today the SNP and Greens will lose their majority in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Sturgeon will need Davidson's support to stay First Minister
I'm not sure where this 'will need Davdson's support to stay First Minister' stuff comes from, she'd be the last of the ugly sisters that the SNP would turn to in the event of a non majority, and they would most likely run as a minority government rather than jump through whatever hoops the SCons required. In case you hadn't noticed, things have changed somewhat since 2007 and the days of bluff old Annabel Goldie.
Of course there might be a SCon/SLab coalition. I'd better book my surgery now in the event of my sides splitting.
My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they
Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.
Chequers is completely off the table.
Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.
The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem.
May's problems will then be:
1. She has agreed to permanent UK membership of the customs union unless the EU release us. 2. It will be impossible to claim th than two years time.
It will get through Parliament. A Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found to the Irish border issue as May is proposing to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period is basically Labour policy anyway and as it covers the whole UK the DUP cannot object and the terms of a Deal can be negotiated in the Transition Period.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Perhaps a uk wide backstop with a poison pill for both sides would be the perfect compromise.
So uk trapped in the customs Union. But in the single market without FOM and payments breaking the 4 freedoms.
That'll give both sides the perfect reason to actually want to avoid the backstop at all costs.
Could be quite an elegant solution to the whole backstop mess.
What happens when the UK government decides they actually quite like being in the CU? E.g if Labour wins the next election.
Most likely we rejoin the SM too especially if Umunna becomes PM
My analysis of Brexit as it stands. The EU are talking up a deal to put May under pressure. If it fails, they
Barnier wants to hold out for the NI only backstop thinking May will cave - hence the overt offer of CETA. He will want to hold out against the whole-UK backstop as mentioned above.
Chequers is completely off the table.
Ireland are desperate to avoid no deal and are pushing Barnier to accept the all-UK backstop as it solves their problem.
The pressure will be on Barnier to agree to the all-UK backstop because that avoids no deal. BUT he is not going to offer anything in relation to Chequers - he will offer a CETA type deal and no doubt point out that the backstop is going to be a problem.
May's problems will then be:
1. She has agreed to permanent UK membership of the customs union unless the EU release us. 2. It will be impossible to claim that the EU will release us, because under CETA it will not be possible and that will be what is in the political declaration. The customs partnership will not appear in the political declaration, so it will be impossible for May to claim that this will solve the backstop. The only way the backstop could ever be released is to go back to the NI only backstop and institute CETA for GB only. 3. If she caves on a NI only backstop, the DUP ears time.
It will get through Parliament. A Customs Union for the whole UK until a technical solution is found to the Irish border issue as May is proposing to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period is basically Labour policy anyway and as it covers the whole UK the DUP cannot object and the terms of a Deal can be negotiated in the Transition Period.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Perhaps a uk wide backstop with a poison pill for both sides would be the perfect compromise.
So uk trapped in the customs Union. But in the single market without FOM and payments breaking the 4 freedoms.
That'll give both sides the perfect reason to actually want to avoid the backstop at all costs.
Could be quite an elegant solution to the whole backstop mess.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
In that case the Brexityoons will be falling over themselves to offer Indyfref II to settle the matter once and for all, right?
It will be up to the the SNP "government" to offer it. Will they?
Really? I'd gathered that the consensus on here (not conclusive or particularly relevant on matters Scottish admittedly) was that it would have no legal weight & would be kicked out by Westminster. Has that changed?
According to Panelbase today the SNP and Greens will lose their majority in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Sturgeon will need Davidson's support to stay First Minister
I'm not sure where this 'will need Davdson's support to stay First Minister' stuff comes from, she'd be the last of the ugly sisters that the SNP would turn to in the event of a non majority, and they would most likely run as a minority government rather than jump through whatever hoops the SCons required. In case you hadn't noticed, things have changed somewhat since 2007 and the days of bluff old Annabel Goldie.
Of course there might be a SCon/SLab coalition. I'd better book my surgery now in the event of my sides splitting.
Goldie backed Salmond on confidence and supply from 2007-2011 yes but blocked any indyref plans until the SNP won a majority in 2011.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
Whatever the polling, logic says NoDealBrexit -> Indyref2 less likely. A Yes win would face Scotland with all the problems of last time - currency, deficit, new border with its biggest market - plus having to meet the tests for joining the Euro along with EU membership.
In that case the Brexityoons will be falling over themselves to offer Indyfref II to settle the matter once and for all, right?
It will be up to the the SNP "government" to offer it. Will they?
Really? I'd gathered that the consensus on here (not conclusive or particularly relevant on matters Scottish admittedly) was that it would have no legal weight & would be kicked out by Westminster. Has that changed?
According to Panelbase today the SNP and Greens will lose their majority in the 2021 Scottish Parliament elections and Sturgeon will need Davidson's support to stay First Minister
I'm not sure where this 'will need Davdson's support to stay First Minister' stuff comes from, she'd be the last of the ugly sisters that the SNP would turn to in the event of a non majority, and they would most likely run as a minority government rather than jump through whatever hoops the SCons required. In case you hadn't noticed, things have changed somewhat since 2007 and the days of bluff old Annabel Goldie.
Of course there might be a SCon/SLab coalition. I'd better book my surgery now in the event of my sides splitting.
The biggest problem for the SNP is that the combination of pro union parties would see independence off the agenda. I am happy with the SNP governing Scotland as long as there is a brake on independence as we are pro the union
If someone thinks the consequences of no deal are so catastrophic that is rather surprising to me. I understand Rees-Mogg thinking it, since he thinks no deal will be fine, and I don't think it impossible that a bad deal is indeed worse than no deal, but when playing up how bad no deal is a deal would have to be pretty darn bad to be worse.
Comments
It depends a little on the deal, and the way it is brought down, and who ends up with the blame.
But, I don’t think just arguing, “I can get a better deal” without being a good deal more specific is likely to work.
I note the difference this time. Oh yes. Posters here aren’t linking to the positive noises from EU, newspapers are ignoring for headlines. we’ve seen through EU little game. After what happened last time EU suckered us with this tactic, there’s no mug in Britain daft enough to plaster this positive spin from EU into headlines, or talk it up, that’s just doing the EUs dirty work for them
After 8 years of graft the deficit is now down to a sustainable level once again but the damage done over the last decade is severe. Our debt as a share of national income has risen from below 40% to well above 80%. That means additional debt of over £400bn. We face major demographic challenges in Social Care and Health Spending over the next decade at least. We are also growing more slowly than we did for both demographic and deficit related reasons.
In the insane period up to 2008 Brown was boosting an economy that was already running hot with both an on balance sheet deficit of 3% plus a large amount of off balance sheet capital expenditure. This was obviously completely unsustainable and contributed to the severity of the crash. Without that sort of fiscal boost however our economy is more likely to grow at 2% rather than 3% or more. New money will help but it is not the answer.
So when our PM announced the end of austerity she lied. We still need another 20 years or so of austerity during which we repair the damage that the GFC did to our books, reduce the debt burden of the next generation to an acceptable level and keep a very tight rein on expenditure. Public spending will continue to grow, probably at a faster rate than in the last 8 years, but almost certainly not like what we saw in the last 2 terms of the Blair government.
There is, in my view, an element of unreality about some Tory plans for spending but given the context in which we sit Labour's plans are bordering on suicidal. Until Labour can find a better purpose than spending lots of other peoples' money or, more often, the next generation's money, it cannot be trusted with government. Our economy is simply not strong enough to survive a Labour government at present or indeed for the foreseeable future.
The personalities are less important than the context. Corbyn is an extreme example of Labour's fiscal incontinence but if he is replaced it is likely to be someone of a similar bent. Boris is somewhat flakier and less reliable than other Tories but he will be constrained to keep spending tight. Our path is set but the optimum way forward is governments willing and able to work on that path rather than indulging in expensive and damaging diversions.
Sometimes I think Corbyns strategy relies on May getting something through so he doesn't have to deliver, as it probably works then.
Making me feel guilty.
Once May & the EU have agreed an acceptable deal, then it is in the interests of the EU to get the deal accepted.
If it is voted down by Labour on the grounds that the Govt will fall, there will be an election and Jeremy can negotiate an (unspecified) better deal after another year or two of negotiation, then this pre-supposes that the EU are willing to invest energy and time in going through much the same rigmarole again.
I suspect the EU will make this clear. They would probably prefer us to say. But, if we want to go and they have negotiated an acceptable deal, then the EU will want us to go on those terms.
The last thing they will want is Labour vetoing the deal, and beginning another tortuous set of re-negotiations to recalibrate the deal for the interests of the Labour party.
There will be clouds of fury over Westminster whatever the deal and it will be attacked by left, right and hardcore Remainers. IMO the majority of people in the country want (a) to avoid a disaster and (b) to get it over with. But it will be hard for people (indeed even for specialists) to judge for sure if it's a disaster or not, as it will certainly be full of fudge. And in reality, the apocalyptic no-deal predictions of aircraft grounded and food running out really won't happen - even a failure to agree will lead to a transitional period to keep things running.
Certainly Labour MPs who vote for the deal against a party decision will be at extreme risk of deselection. Party members who are not Corbynites are often hardcore Remainers (even in seats which voted Leave - remember that Labour voters in Leave seats often voted Remain), and an alliance of the two will be ample to deselect.
Do Russian citizens actually have a GE vote here?
English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, etc are ethnicities. British is a nationality.
My wife's half Scottish so my kids are quarter Scottish. Can you please explain the ethnic differences between English, Scottish and Welsh? Or Irish?
Jeremy Warner"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/10/06/middle-classes-may-rise-globally-danger-extinction-west/
No Deal Brexit as polling today shows makes an indyref2 likely which Yes could win, polling also shows even most English voters prefer Remain to No Deal Brexit and not forgetting the economic damage of No Deal
If British is an ethnicity it means Welsh or Celtic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45774578
The result illustrates the danger of triumphalist nationalism, incidentally. The "we're free, let's obliterate all links with the Russian past" instinct in Ukraine and the Baltic states is understandable but it's equally understandable that minorities of Russian origin feel the government isn't interested in them, and there must be a cohort of voters who want reasonable bridge-building too.
The one (minor) consolation would be all the post hoc justifications that Tories would find for falling in behind the lazy, duplicitous, far right pandering shit.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1048856418181419008
But what science will determine which red lines are in Self interest, and which are In the National interest? No science will decide this, it will just be who spins the best.
https://twitter.com/JimmySecUK/status/1048711349117882368
“Really pleased to see the Yazidi girl and the Congolese doctor win the Nobel Peace prize. The suffering of women in war is often overlooked and it is really good to see those trying to do something about it being honoured for their efforts.
It is, I think, a little bit too easy for women in the West to focus on the issues they face while ignoring the very much worse brutality endured by nameless women in far away countries. The Yazidis in particular have suffered appallingly - being subject to genocidal brutality by IS scum - and too many of those who make a big show of claiming how they are on the side of the oppressed have turned their faces away from this forgotten minority.”
No-one picked up who I might be referring to in the last sentence.
https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1048872183056011266
On deselection, I think that Corbynsceptic MPs who vote to bring down the Government will be pretty safe - the centre of gravity in most CLPs is to shrug off dissent of the leadership but not active collaboration with the Conservatives, especially over Brexit.
Is the penalty for being married whilst raped in Iran still being stoned to death? For that matter, is the penalty for being homosexual whilst alive to be executed (in Saudi Arabia as well, I think)?
Not to mention the gay concentration camp in Chechnya.
But hey, we've apparently outlawed using incorrect pronouns on Twitter. (If my skimming of the Graham Linehan case is correct).
Events are moving quickly which is precisely why it's nonsense for people to hark back to the mayoral contests as evidence of how Johnson would be popular in the country. He's a busted flush now that voters can see him for what he really is.
His motive isn't just to be irritating though. An important strategic element of the Putin Project is to depict other countries as degenerate cesspits in the final stages of disintegration. This message is relentlessly drilled home in the Russophone media so Western audiences are largely oblivious to it. It's done to discourage emigration which is crippling Russian and exacerbates its terrible demographics as it is the young and educated who are leaving. Some of Putin's more sibylline deeds make more sense when viewed in this context.
Still, in being a shameless hypocrite Corbyn is no different to any other politician.
And on a completely unrelated note isn't it terrible how in Labour's conference included some attention on international issues when there are pressing domestic issues?
It is like these people manage to do everything wrong...
When the Tories point out examples of anti semitism in Britain, I certainly listen to them. After all, Tory Party gave Britain an anti Semitic Prime Minister in Neville Chamberlain, they should know what they are talking about. That’s Chamberlain I quoted at start there. what does such opinion lead his government to do to Jewish refugees? In game of top trumps, on anti Semitic evidence alone Neville Chamberlain and his Tory Government blows Jeremy Corbyn right out the park.
The spark under this latest bonfire of anti semetism in British politics appears to have been Ken Livingston crucifying himself on claim Hitler was a Zionist. the first bit of what he said Livingston is actually right, Hitler urged Jews to leave Germany, but a fair minded person mentioning this history would add where should they go, why should they leave their homeland without their wealth! On the second bit Livingston is also right, Hitler arranged for more than 50 thousand to emigrate to Palestine, encouraging them by allowing Jews who left for Palestine to transfer a significant portion of their assets there, those who left for other countries had to leave much of what they owned behind. But to conclude from this Hitler was therefore a Zionist is not only weak on supporting logic, it betrays disrespect for Zionism with desire to tie Zionism and nazism together on this flimsy evidence. Because it overlooks the rest of the overwhelming evidence telling us Hitlers regime regarded the Zionist movement as a significant part of the world Jewish conspiracy they had dedicated their lives to destroying. The more logical explanation for helping Jewish emigration to Palestine, it would mitigate international criticism of their anti-semitic measures, this makes more sense as it fits perfectly with political game playing Hitlers regime played throughout the thirties. It takes us to a conclusion quite opposite to Hitler being a Zionist. Nor did Hitler “go mad” as such, if Ken was half the historian he thinks he is he would know the Germans fought the war on speed (methamphetamine) and mention Hitler himself ended up an irrational junkie, destroyed by what we call oxy (known as Eukodol in Germany at the time).
About a quarter of the Jews in Germany fled this victimisation, making themselves refugees. Livingstone, all Labour members, and all the rest of us Briton’s too would do better to talk about and openly acknowledge Britain’s reaction to these refugees, kindertransport separating children from parents Trump Fashion. At the crucial moment I believe Britain could have done more, it didn’t because of anti semitism in the Tory party, and perhaps the ruling classes love in with the Nazis.
https://twitter.com/helenlewis/status/1048872839997218817
If you are looking for the place which has the shittiest education system in the UK, and the poorest health service, then you just need to open your front door in Llandudno & look at what Welsh Labour has achieved since 1999.
https://fullfact.org/law/can-scotland-legally-hold-another-referendum/
I was merely pointing out that the Niemoller approach could apply just as easily to Labour as to the Tories.
The sad fact is that a lot of people, particularly the political active, seem to be more interested in anti-racism as a way of proclaiming their virtue and attacking their ppponents than in concern for those who suffer the effects of racism. And, even more sadly, if the suffererers of racism are not their supporters or are not approved of for some other reason then a lot of self-professed anti-racists don’t give a toss about them.
This makes it all the more disheartening that the opposition parties in Wales have failed to mount a serious challenge and provide an alternative government.
The SNP did successfully do this in Scotland. They deserve a lot of credit for that.
The future in Wales would be much brighter if the opposition parties could do to Llafur Cymru what the SNP did to SLAB.
Education is a bigger tanker with a larger turning circle. However we can see the commitment to education in Scotland of the main opposition party in Holyrood when it votes down legislation that it had in its own manifesto, just to stuff the EssEnnPee.
However given EUref2 is only likely if No Deal and polling shows even England would vote for Remain over No Deal that is unlikely to be an issue
But Corbyn went further. The organisation he chaired claimed that Yazidi suffering was invented or exaggerated. That was wrong and morally despicable. You can argue that intervention would make a very bad situation worse. But to deny the facts about human suffering in order to justify your own pre-existing policy? Yuck.
If his claim to be on the side of the oppressed means something, what does it mean? Nice words? Providing refuge? What?
Did Corbyn suggest, for instance, that Yazidis should be given priority for asylum in the UK?
Easy to send a nice tweet now that a prize has been won. But that’s meaningless waffle.
https://twitter.com/Mike_Blackley/status/1048872813849980928
If I was still in Scotland I would vote SNP but for the Union Scon. I have recently had experience of the NHS in Scotland when one of our family was admitted to hospital following a fall and the staffing was dreadful. We went into the hospital, went upto the wards, walking endlessly down the wards with no nurses in view and only one cleaner. No staff on reception, no nurses at the nursing stations and our relative complaining of how the staff nurse was having to make their toast, no one else being available.
Just walking through the hospital showed how grossly undermanned it is
'Scotland will not be permitted to hold another independence referendum until at least 2027 under a Conservative government, Ruth Davidson has said.'
https://tinyurl.com/y7e9gy2a
Would be interesting for her to create that precedent.
The EU would have something to say about that.
https://fullfact.org/health/what-is-the-nhs-budget/
https://twitter.com/BallotBoxScot/status/1048723668052987904?s=20
Ivy League universities ran creative writing classes in the 1950s - they didn't.
Self-regarding idiots were appointed as professors in Ivy League universities before they'd turned 30 - they weren't.
Said self-regarding idiots would be awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature - they wouldn't be.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-should-renounce-the-stop-the-war-coalition-a6768726.html
Like the author, I think they're too keen to condemn every war and downplay any group embraced by the US, and although I don't follow them closely I can well imagine that they did exactly that about the Yazidis. That said, he's not their chairman now and hasn't been since 2015, and I don't think he has to give a running commentary on their positions or make a speech breaking with them. He'd certainly favour giving the Yazidis asylum, and it's not a question of priority over someone else - he's in favour of the most liberal asytlum policy that one could possibly want, and is often attacked for that too.
So uk trapped in the customs Union.
But in the single market without FOM and payments breaking the 4 freedoms.
That'll give both sides the perfect reason to actually want to avoid the backstop at all costs.
Could be quite an elegant solution to the whole backstop mess.
Austria's chief Brexit negotiator confirmed that last week
https://twitter.com/AngusRobertson/status/1046670832569929730?s=20
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
Hunt has a net negative rating with the public of -44% and with Tories of -12%.
Boris has a net negative rating with the public of -28% but a net positive rating with Tories of +9%. (p5)
Javid has a net negative rating with the public of -21% and a net negative rating with Tories of -1% (p6)
May has a net negative rating of -23% with the public but a net positive rating of +62% with Tories.
May also does better than Corbyn who has a net negative rating of -28% with the public and Cable who has a net negative rating of -27% with the public (p4-5)
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/nefkp5sk7j/Times_181001_VI_Results_w.pdf
Of course there might be a SCon/SLab coalition. I'd better book my surgery now in the event of my sides splitting.
No way the Tories will do a deal with SLab, they will vote on an issue by issue basis. The only way SLab gets back to power is with the LDs as they did from 1999 to 2007.