This is an utter indictment of Theresa May and her strategy, the Conservative government, and the Senior Civil Service. All have been/are negligent in their jobs.
Will heads roll? Of course they won’t.
It is a basic failure of Government.
I don’t think basic quite covers it.
It is a fundamental failure of government. It suggests that Britain no longer has a governing class or civil service of sufficient quality to be viable as an independent state.
That’s quite depressing.
The country voted for free unicorns, you cannot blame the governing class for not being able to deliver unrealistic promises.
Absolute garbage.
In the Lancaster House speech in Jan 17, May committed to leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. Vote Leave’s ‘manifesto’ said we’d be leaving both. That requires checks at Dover and on the Irish border.
The failure to plan and spend money to make even rudimentary preparations for that is what is negligent. Competent management and organisations make plans for worst-case scenarios.
Mr. Royale, online views and sales have declined quite sharply, though. Someone here posted the figures a few days ago, suggesting if they don't stabilise or the rate of decline lessen, he'll be told by the owner to change tack.
This is an utter indictment of Theresa May and her strategy, the Conservative government, and the Senior Civil Service. All have been/are negligent in their jobs.
Will heads roll? Of course they won’t.
It is a basic failure of Government.
I don’t think basic quite covers it.
It is a fundamental failure of government. It suggests that Britain no longer has a governing class or civil service of sufficient quality to be viable as an independent state.
That’s quite depressing.
The country voted for free unicorns, you cannot blame the governing class for not being able to deliver unrealistic promises.
Absolute garbage.
In the Lancaster House speech in Jan 17, May committed to leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. Vote Leave’s ‘manifesto’ said we’d be leaving both. That requires checks at Dover and on the Irish border.
The failure to plan and spend money to make even rudimentary preparations for that is what is negligent. Competent management and organisations make plans for worst-case scenarios.
Vote Leave's campaign said we'd also be part of a Europe wide free trade agreement.
They said Brexit would lead to no disruption and sunlit uplands.
This is an utter indictment of Theresa May and her strategy, the Conservative government, and the Senior Civil Service. All have been/are negligent in their jobs.
Will heads roll? Of course they won’t.
It is a basic failure of Government.
I don’t think basic quite covers it.
It is a fundamental failure of government. It suggests that Britain no longer has a governing class or civil service of sufficient quality to be viable as an independent state.
That’s quite depressing.
I recommend watching the first Brexit select committee hearing from 2016. It’s clear people like Gove and Raab had no idea what leaving the EU actaually involved.
Why? The Southern US states are the most conservative area anywhere in the Western world and will vote Republican regardless and he has added blue collar voters in the MidWest angry at globalisation.
Trump has a low ceiling ie he will not get over 50% but also a high floor of around 40%
Mr. Slade, how very dare you mock my fantastic find?!
Incidentally, surprised there are two Morleys. Second one threw me, as it took a while for me to find 'Ledes'.
Mr. Eagles, and Cameron, who included it in the manifesto and seemed oddly complacent about the very tight polling?
Do you think we'll end up with no deal, then a second referendum?
No, I think we'll leave no matter what in March 2019.
If it is sustained No Deal/WTO Brexit then the question is not if but when we Rejoin the EU.
Most Leavers said No Deal/WTO Brexit wasn't going to happen, their credibility will be shot to pieces a bit like the Tories after Black Wednesday or the appeasers in 1940.
I'm doubtful if no deal/WTO will actually happen. We may get very close to it, within an inch or two of th edge of the cliff, but when supermarkets start warning of foood shortages there will be panic buying and a collapse in sterling and this will create an atmosphere of crisis in which anything could happen, including a second referendum or extension of article 50. Which I think is what the EU is hoping for - a humiliated U.K. being forced to seek terms.
There was a theory going round (someone may have posted the link here) that there was a secret contingency plan that, in the case of a No Deal, the US would step in to provide supplies. I could certainly see the Donald doing that to p1ss off Merkel et al...
I thought not much of it but then last week it turns out the US has kick started the process for a UK-US trade deal
I had lunch in Gaucho today, there were some out there saying Gaucho and their customers were responsible for global warming 'cause of the beef they serve.
Mr. Eagles, if the choice was false why was it presented?
Because the people proposing didn't think Leave would win/had other ambitions, hadn't really thought about it.
Gove thought the worse thing that would happen to the UK would be if Remain won by a landslide, he thought an Indyref style result would keep it on the agenda for the next decade.
Gove thought Leave were going to lose, he spent the 21st-23rd of June 2016 ensuring that Leavers wouldn't try and topple David Cameron when Remain won.
Boris was focussing on winning the 2019 Tory leadership contest so he thought the referendum was the best way of appealing to Tory members. Prior to Feb 2016 Boris was very pro EU, just look at his comments.
People like Fox etc weren't Leavers until late 2015/16 they were Eurosceptics but thought the UK should Remain in the EU, they really didn't have any intellectual heft when it came to the reality of what Leave meant other than in abstract concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of Gove/Cummings and Boris was to achieve a photofinish for Leave with Remain, ideally 49.5% to 50.5%.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
Mr. Slade, how very dare you mock my fantastic find?!
Incidentally, surprised there are two Morleys. Second one threw me, as it took a while for me to find 'Ledes'.
Mr. Eagles, and Cameron, who included it in the manifesto and seemed oddly complacent about the very tight polling?
Do you think we'll end up with no deal, then a second referendum?
No, I think we'll leave no matter what in March 2019.
If it is sustained No Deal/WTO Brexit then the question is not if but when we Rejoin the EU.
Most Leavers said No Deal/WTO Brexit wasn't going to happen, their credibility will be shot to pieces a bit like the Tories after Black Wednesday or the appeasers in 1940.
I'm doubtful if no deal/WTO will actually happen. We may get very close to it, within an inch or two of th edge of the cliff, but when supermarkets start warning of foood shortages there will be panic buying and a collapse in sterling and this will create an atmosphere of crisis in which anything could happen, including a second referendum Orti extension of article 50. Which I think is what the EU is hoping for - a humiliated U.K. being forced to seek terms.
There was a theory going round (someone may have posted the link here) that there was a secret contingency plan that, in the case of a No Deal, the US would step in to provide supplies. I could certainly see the Donald doing that to p1ss off Merkel et al...
I thought not much of it but then last week it turns out the US has kick started the process for a UK-US trade deal
Mr. Royale, online views and sales have declined quite sharply, though. Someone here posted the figures a few days ago, suggesting if they don't stabilise or the rate of decline lessen, he'll be told by the owner to change tack.
MailOnline is largely run separately (by Martin Clarke) from the print edition, isn’t it?
Mr. Slade, how very dare you mock my fantastic find?!
Incidentally, surprised there are two Morleys. Second one threw me, as it took a while for me to find 'Ledes'.
Mr. Eagles, and Cameron, who included it in the manifesto and seemed oddly complacent about the very tight polling?
Do you think we'll end up with no deal, then a second referendum?
No, I think we'll leave no matter what in March 2019.
If it is sustained No Deal/WTO Brexit then the question is not if but when we Rejoin the EU.
Most Leavers said No Deal/WTO Brexit wasn't going to happen, their credibility will be shot to pieces a bit like the Tories after Black Wednesday or the appeasers in 1940.
The EU won’t offer us anything but standard terms (euro, schengen and full federalism) to re-join.
That will make it very hard for re-join to win, and easy for stay out to win, even if no deal is sustained and a bit of a car crash.
I had lunch in Gaucho today, there were some out there saying Gaucho and their customers were responsible for global warming 'cause of the beef they serve.
Mr. Eagles, if the choice was false why was it presented?
Because the people proposing didn't think Leave would win/had other ambitions, hadn't really thought about it.
Gove thought the worse thing that would happen to the UK would be if Remain won by a landslide, he thought an Indyref style result would keep it on the agenda for the next decade.
Gove thought Leave were going to lose, he spent the 21st-23rd of June 2016 ensuring that Leavers wouldn't try and topple David Cameron when Remain won.
Boris was focussing on winning the 2019 Tory leadership contest so he thought the referendum was the best way of appealing to Tory members. Prior to Feb 2016 Boris was very pro EU, just look at his comments.
People like Fox etc weren't Leavers until late 2015/16 they were Eurosceptics but thought the UK should Remain in the EU, they really didn't have any intellectual heft when it came to the reality of what Leave meant other than in abstract concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of Gove/Cummings and Boris was to achieve a photofinish for Leave with Remain, ideally 49.5% to 50.5%.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
I don't think they overshot, I think the likes of Cameron, Osborn and Clegg were complacent and never sold the EU to the millions of waverers.
Mr. Eagles, if the choice was false why was it presented?
Because the people proposing didn't think Leave would win/had other ambitions, hadn't really thought about it.
Gove thought the worse thing that would happen to the UK would be if Remain won by a landslide, he thought an Indyref style result would keep it on the agenda for the next decade.
Gove thought Leave were going to lose, he spent the 21st-23rd of June 2016 ensuring that Leavers wouldn't try and topple David Cameron when Remain won.
Boris was focussing on winning the 2019 Tory leadership contest so he thought the referendum was the best way of appealing to Tory members. Prior to Feb 2016 Boris was very pro EU, just look at his comments.
People like Fox etc weren't Leavers until late 2015/16 they were Eurosceptics but thought the UK should Remain in the EU, they really didn't have any intellectual heft when it came to the reality of what Leave meant other than in abstract concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of Gove/Cummings and Boris was to achieve a photofinish for Leave with Remain, ideally 49.5% to 50.5%.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
I don't think they overshot, I think the likes of Cameron, Osborn and Clegg were complacent and never sold the EU to the millions of waverers.
Well, that too. But, nevertheless, TSE is right. Gove’s conviction was always there but he got involved to mitigate against Leave getting hammered in a landslide.
He didn’t know just how successful he’d be or just how craply the Remain arguments would land.
Mr. Eagles, if the choice was false why was it presented?
Because the people proposing didn't think Leave would win/had other ambitions, hadn't really thought about it.
Gove thought the worse thing that would happen to the UK would be if Remain won by a landslide, he thought an Indyref style result would keep it on the agenda for the next decade.
Gove thought Leave were going to lose, he spent the 21st-23rd of June 2016 ensuring that Leavers wouldn't try and topple David Cameron when Remain won.
Boris was focussing on winning the 2019 Tory leadership contest so he thought the referendum was the best way of appealing to Tory members. Prior to Feb 2016 Boris was very pro EU, just look at his comments.
People like Fox etc weren't Leavers until late 2015/16 they were Eurosceptics but thought the UK should Remain in the EU, they really didn't have any intellectual heft when it came to the reality of what Leave meant other than in abstract concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of Gove/Cummings and Boris was to achieve a photofinish for Leave with Remain, ideally 49.5% to 50.5%.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
I don't think they overshot, I think the likes of Cameron, Osborn and Clegg were complacent and never sold the EU to the millions of waverers.
Dave's two mistakes were
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
Mr. Eagles, if the choice was false why was it presented?
Because the people proposing didn't think Leave would win/had other ambitions, hadn't really thought about it.
Gove thought the worse thing that would happen to the UK would be if Remain won by a landslide, he thought an Indyref style result would keep it on the agenda for the next decade.
Gove thought Leave were going to lose, he spent the 21st-23rd of June 2016 ensuring that Leavers wouldn't try and topple David Cameron when Remain won.
Boris was focussing on winning the 2019 Tory leadership contest so he thought the referendum was the best way of appealing to Tory members. Prior to Feb 2016 Boris was very pro EU, just look at his comments.
People like Fox etc weren't Leavers until late 2015/16 they were Eurosceptics but thought the UK should Remain in the EU, they really didn't have any intellectual heft when it came to the reality of what Leave meant other than in abstract concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of Gove/Cummings and Boris was to achieve a photofinish for Leave with Remain, ideally 49.5% to 50.5%.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
I don't think they overshot, I think the likes of Cameron, Osborn and Clegg were complacent and never sold the EU to the millions of waverers.
Dave's two mistakes were
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
3) He thought he was really, really good at this sort of shit.
Mr. Eagles, if the choice was false why was it presented?
Because the people proposing didn't think Leave would win/had other ambitions, hadn't really thought about it.
Gove thought the worse thing that would happen to the UK would be if Remain won by a landslide, he thought an Indyref style result would keep it on the agenda for the next decade.
Gove thought Leave were going to lose, he spent the 21st-23rd of June 2016 ensuring that Leavers wouldn't try and topple David Cameron when Remain won.
Boris was focussing on winning the 2019 Tory leadership contest so he thought the referendum was the best way of appealing to Tory members. Prior to Feb 2016 Boris was very pro EU, just look at his comments.
People like Fox etc weren't Leavers until late 2015/16 they were Eurosceptics but thought the UK should Remain in the EU, they really didn't have any intellectual heft when it came to the reality of what Leave meant other than in abstract concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of Gove/Cummings and Boris was to achieve a photofinish for Leave with Remain, ideally 49.5% to 50.5%.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
Last night, one of the Prime Minister’s most senior aides made an outspoken attack on eurosceptics who have argued that Mr Cameron could get a better deal if the UK voted to leave the EU first - and then held another negotiation, followed by a second referendum.
The senior Number 10 figure said it was “ridiculous” to suggest that Mr Cameron would be willing to countenance a second referendum.
It will be seen as a rebuke in particular to Boris Johnson, who is believed to back the idea, and Dominic Cummings, Michael Gove’s former adviser, who is now helping to run the Out campaign, Vote Leave.
Mr Johnson, the Mayor of London, is said to have told friends that he wanted the public to vote to leave the EU because this would force Brussels to offer far better terms which the public could then support in a second referendum.
Mr. Eagles, if the choice was false why was it presented?
Because the people proposing didn't think Leave would win/had other ambitions, hadn't really thought about it.
Gove thought the worse thing that would happen to the UK would be if Remain won by a landslide, he thought an Indyref style result would keep it on the agenda for the next decade.
Gove thought Leave were going to lose, he spent the 21st-23rd of June 2016 ensuring that Leavers wouldn't try and topple David Cameron when Remain won.
Boris was focussing on winning the 2019 Tory leadership contest so he thought the referendum was the best way of appealing to Tory members. Prior to Feb 2016 Boris was very pro EU, just look at his comments.
People like Fox etc weren't Leavers until late 2015/16 they were Eurosceptics but thought the UK should Remain in the EU, they really didn't have any intellectual heft when it came to the reality of what Leave meant other than in abstract concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of Gove/Cummings and Boris was to achieve a photofinish for Leave with Remain, ideally 49.5% to 50.5%.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
I don't think they overshot, I think the likes of Cameron, Osborn and Clegg were complacent and never sold the EU to the millions of waverers.
Dave's two mistakes were
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
He did go blue on blue, pretty heavily. Thus alienating many Eurosceptic but persuadable conservatives. The big twat.
I don't think they overshot, I think the likes of Cameron, Osborn and Clegg were complacent and never sold the EU to the millions of waverers.
don't just blame that batch of politicians. there's been 40+ years of the leave campaign/euro bashing and very little in the manner of a pro eu campaign (sorry Lib Dems you know we love your plucky spirit). it's been both newspapers and politicians campaigning for leave but the pro-eu side thought "we're in and no-one would be stupid enough to offer an in-out referendum"
3) He thought he was really, really good at this sort of shit.
He was, at the time he'd won four out of four general elections and plebiscites.
No matter what you say he achieved previously he's always gonna be the fella that called the referendum, didn't really plan for the aftermath if Leave won, ran a crap campaign and then fecked off to spend more time with his wife's millions.
Mr. Eagles, if the choice was false why was it presented?
Because the people proposing didn't think Leave would win/had other ambitions, hadn't really thought about it.
Gove thought the worse thing that would happen to the UK would be if Remain won by a landslide, he thought an Indyref style result would keep it on the agenda for the next decade.
Gove thought Leave were going to lose, he spent the 21st-23rd of June 2016 ensuring that Leavers wouldn't try and topple David Cameron when Remain won.
Boris was focussing on winning the 2019 Tory leadership contest so he thought the referendum was the best way of appealing to Tory members. Prior to Feb 2016 Boris was very pro EU, just look at his comments.
People like Fox etc weren't Leavers until late 2015/16 they were Eurosceptics but thought the UK should Remain in the EU, they really didn't have any intellectual heft when it came to the reality of what Leave meant other than in abstract concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of Gove/Cummings and Boris was to achieve a photofinish for Leave with Remain, ideally 49.5% to 50.5%.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
Last night, one of the Prime Minister’s most senior aides made an outspoken attack on eurosceptics who have argued that Mr Cameron could get a better deal if the UK voted to leave the EU first - and then held another negotiation, followed by a second referendum.
The senior Number 10 figure said it was “ridiculous” to suggest that Mr Cameron would be willing to countenance a second referendum.
It will be seen as a rebuke in particular to Boris Johnson, who is believed to back the idea, and Dominic Cummings, Michael Gove’s former adviser, who is now helping to run the Out campaign, Vote Leave.
Mr Johnson, the Mayor of London, is said to have told friends that he wanted the public to vote to leave the EU because this would force Brussels to offer far better terms which the public could then support in a second referendum.
Yes, but was that a campaign strategy or an intended outcome?
Besides which we don’t know, if Boris had won the Tory leadership, that he might not have done precisely that.
I suspect the EU and he would have rehashed and tweaked Cameron’s deal before he proclaimed it a huge success.
I think Gove would actually have (gently) taken us out.
3) He thought he was really, really good at this sort of shit.
He was, at the time he'd won four out of four general elections and plebiscites.
No matter what you say he achieved previously he's always gonna be the fella that called the referendum, didn't really plan for the aftermath if Leave won, ran a crap campaign and then fecked off to spend more time with his wife's millions.
If he hadn't resigned he was going to be ousted plus his credibility was shot.
Yes, but was that a campaign strategy or an intended outcome?
Besides which we don’t know, if Boris had won the Tory leadership, that he might not have done precisely that.
I suspect the EU and he would have rehashed and tweaked Cameron’s deal before he proclaimed it a huge success.
I think Gove would actually have (gently) taken us out.
Watch that Select Committee hearing I posted below. Gove was totally naive about how the EU would handle this and what leaving would involve. He literally says we shouldn't need to negotiate about trade because we're happy with things as they are so we can just "carry on".
3) He thought he was really, really good at this sort of shit.
He was, at the time he'd won four out of four general elections and plebiscites.
No matter what you say he achieved previously he's always gonna be the fella that called the referendum, didn't really plan for the aftermath if Leave won, ran a crap campaign and then fecked off to spend more time with his wife's millions.
And now where is the geezer? Ee’s in Nice, right, with ‘is trotters up.
Mr. Eagles, if the choice was false why was it presented?
Because the people proposing didn't think Leave would win/had other ambitions, hadn't really thought about it.
Gove thought the worse thing that would happen to the UK would be if Remain won by a landslide, he thought an Indyref style result would keep it on the agenda for the next decade.
Gove thought Leave were going to lose, he spent the 21st-23rd of June 2016 ensuring that Leavers wouldn't try and topple David Cameron when Remain won.
Boris was focussing on winning the 2019 Tory leadership contest so he thought the referendum was the best way of appealing to Tory members. Prior to Feb 2016 Boris was very pro EU, just look at his comments.
People like Fox etc weren't Leavers until late 2015/16 they were Eurosceptics but thought the UK should Remain in the EU, they really didn't have any intellectual heft when it came to the reality of what Leave meant other than in abstract concepts.
I think it’s pretty clear that the strategy of Gove/Cummings and Boris was to achieve a photofinish for Leave with Remain, ideally 49.5% to 50.5%.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
I don't think they overshot, I think the likes of Cameron, Osborn and Clegg were complacent and never sold the EU to the millions of waverers.
Dave's two mistakes were
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
There’s another view: (3) he should have negotiated much harder and with more conviction from his 2013 Bloomberg speech, played the EU negations longer on that to 2017 or even 2018 and absolutely put Britain’s membership on the line for that, before getting a new draft treaty done.
He’d then have still had Farage and Redwood against him but would have got most Conservatives with him and won 60/40.
He basically thought he’d get away with it, and didn’t know how weak his real position was.
3) He thought he was really, really good at this sort of shit.
He was, at the time he'd won four out of four general elections and plebiscites.
No matter what you say he achieved previously he's always gonna be the fella that called the referendum, didn't really plan for the aftermath if Leave won, ran a crap campaign and then fecked off to spend more time with his wife's millions.
He wasn't helped by labour not campaigning properly for remain. given how popular JC is with his fanbase and how pro-eu he was it still amazes me he's had no backfire on it. he barely did anything
@ Mr White Rabbit 2. I would expect to see the Tenancy Agreement on request, first, before anything else. Not sure if this is a legal requirement without some serious digging. It may well be an "in practice" legal requirement.
The pressure is on to give the holding deposit and take the property off the market; I have been beaten because I waited 24 hours once. The agents don't come with a copy of the tenancy agreement and nor are they put online.
3. Some of that is dodgy. eg They could not legally charge the inventory fee if you pull out before the inventory had been done. That reference fee is about double or treble what it should be. I pay £15 for a decent credit report, and it is not rocket science to interpret.
That should be a Holding Deposit, which should probably be returned on pullout minus the value of work done for your tenancy.
They are charging a holding deposit calculable by reference to the fees, not the fees themselves. And they are pretty clear that if you pull out you don't get the holding deposit back - though query how that stands up if the contract once I get it is unreasonable.
Not sure what work is being done for the contract fee - unless it is your mods to the agreement. In which case you should get it back if they did not do the mods.
If it is an "admin" fee I can understand it -I set up a tenancy last week and it took the best part of 2 days work, and involved roughly 120 pages of gumf for the tenant. One page of this was a list of tickboxes to prove that the tenant had received all the other gumf, because the Govt have taken to making LL rights dependent on proving to have given the T various different bits of paper.
It is naughty to roll the Holding Deposit in with the Admin Fee.
This was a fill-in-the-blanks job. The modification I wanted was a 6 month break (to match my job) which I wrote for them in the end because they kept drafting it incomprehensibly.
This time there was some admin. I got my checklist and my Government mandated booklet and an actual human being to give it all to me. But sometimes there isn't.
4. Your only solution to 4 is to write modifications by hand on the spot, from the notes you made at the previous meeting, and face them down to comply with their contract.
I made my conditions clear when I gave them the holding contract, but again, I don't think it would have prevented an argument. They were apologetic in the end about it.
Out of interest, what was the EPC figure? I think I have one E and all the rest are Cs or Ds; it is mainly old stock in good condition and properly renovated / ventilated.
E - though I thought that was illegal to let now...?
Personally I self manage except for student HMOs, and do not charge any fees to anyone at all for anything, except if eg a cheque bounces and I get a bank fee for that. And for Court Fees if it comes to that (never has). For student HMOs we have a superb agent, but also top 20% properties. Tenant goodwill is worth far more than a couple of hundred £££ imo,
Personally I would go for the contract fee back, and probably cc the letter to the landlord - depending on your confidence level.
I will accept the no fees law. It will be coming in because TM is a Virtue Signaller, but it cost Ts more money.
I trust you reported the HB Fraudster.
Cheers
The Council were on to the named recipient of housing benefit despite not living there. The person was I think fictional and I merely suspected the landlord was in on it because of hteir nonchalence rather than action per se.
I wish more landlords took good tenants over a few extra quid!
Yes, but was that a campaign strategy or an intended outcome?
Besides which we don’t know, if Boris had won the Tory leadership, that he might not have done precisely that.
I suspect the EU and he would have rehashed and tweaked Cameron’s deal before he proclaimed it a huge success.
I think Gove would actually have (gently) taken us out.
Watch that Select Committee hearing I posted below. Gove was totally naive about how the EU would handle this and what leaving would involve. He literally says we shouldn't need to negotiate about trade because we're happy with things as they are so we can just "carry on".
A Select Committee hearing is one thing. I was referring to what I think Gove would have done as PM.
3) He thought he was really, really good at this sort of shit.
He was, at the time he'd won four out of four general elections and plebiscites.
No matter what you say he achieved previously he's always gonna be the fella that called the referendum, didn't really plan for the aftermath if Leave won, ran a crap campaign and then fecked off to spend more time with his wife's millions.
And now where is the geezer? Ee’s in Nice, right, with ‘is trotters up.
Mr. Slade, how very dare you mock my fantastic find?!
Incidentally, surprised there are two Morleys. Second one threw me, as it took a while for me to find 'Ledes'.
Mr. Eagles, and Cameron, who included it in the manifesto and seemed oddly complacent about the very tight polling?
Do you think we'll end up with no deal, then a second referendum?
No, I think we'll leave no matter what in March 2019.
If it is sustained No Deal/WTO Brexit then the question is not if but when we Rejoin the EU.
Most Leavers said No Deal/WTO Brexit wasn't going to happen, their credibility will be shot to pieces a bit like the Tories after Black Wednesday or the appeasers in 1940.
The EU won’t offer us anything but standard terms (euro, schengen and full federalism) to re-join.
That will make it very hard for re-join to win, and easy for stay out to win, even if no deal is sustained and a bit of a car crash.
Don't talk Britain down. We can negotiate a good deal to get back in - even if we have dropped behind France and are now only the sixth biggest economy in the world we are still a catch.
If we don't want to join the Euro and Schengen we won't have to. But speaking personally I'd be happy with both. And we don't know what the circumstances will be when we rejoin. If the pound has had a torrid time of it outside the EU the Euro might look very attractive.
Debenhams, Britain's biggest standalone department store chain, will announce the biggest loss in its 240-year history on Thursday as it sets out a plan to shrink its footprint in a radically shifting retail environment.
Sky News can reveal that Debenhams will report a statutory annual loss of almost £500m for the year to 1 September.
The mass of red ink on its accounts will arise from an overall charge of more than £500m - offsetting underlying profits of about £33m - relating to goodwill and impairments connected to store leases and IT systems.
Alongside the full-year loss, Debenhams will confirm the closure of one-third of its 165 stores over the next five years, a stark upward revision from earlier guidance that around ten of its stores were facing the axe.
That closure programme will entail the eventual loss of thousands of jobs from its 27,000-strong UK workforce, although Debenhams is not expected to set out details of the headcount changes or affected individual stores on Thursday.
Approximately 5,000 jobs are ultimately expected to be affected by the existing restructuring plans over a five-year period.
' Philip Hammond is basking in the biggest upgrade to UK public finances in many decades and can now plan his October 29 Budget without having to announce immediate unpopular tax increases.
The Office for Budget Responsibility is set to give the chancellor much more room for manoeuvre by producing new forecasts showing that borrowing in 2018-19 will be about £13bn lower than it forecast in March and will say that this improvement will persist through the five year forecasting period, which ends in 2023-24. '
If this is true then Hammond should be able to announce quite a bit of good news.
A £13bn reduction in the borrowing forecast is rather more than I would have expected but perhaps the OBR is keen to undershoot after a few years of embarrassing overshoots in its forecasts.
Mr. Royale, online views and sales have declined quite sharply, though. Someone here posted the figures a few days ago, suggesting if they don't stabilise or the rate of decline lessen, he'll be told by the owner to change tack.
MailOnline is largely run separately (by Martin Clarke) from the print edition, isn’t it?
Mail plus is the mail app and produces the paper exactly the same as the hard copy for £9.99 per month and I can read the full paper on line from 11.00pm and my wife gets the same puzzles as well on line
I think that R +1 overall is the likeliest outcome in the Senate.
Given the states up this time, and how many the Democrats are defending, that's actually a pretty good result for them.
Yes, if the Dems limit their losses to 1 or 2 seats then they have an excellent chance of regaining the Senate in 2020 when the map is much more favourable.
' Philip Hammond is basking in the biggest upgrade to UK public finances in many decades and can now plan his October 29 Budget without having to announce immediate unpopular tax increases.
The Office for Budget Responsibility is set to give the chancellor much more room for manoeuvre by producing new forecasts showing that borrowing in 2018-19 will be about £13bn lower than it forecast in March and will say that this improvement will persist through the five year forecasting period, which ends in 2023-24. '
If this is true then Hammond should be able to announce quite a bit of good news.
A £13bn reduction in the borrowing forecast is rather more than I would have expected but perhaps the OBR is keen to undershoot after a few years of embarrassing overshoots in its forecasts.
Don't worry Mr and Mrs Glumbuckets (Hammond and May) will still be able to to produce a "downer" budget.
That's precisely my point. I'd expect his popularity to be around 35%. But the Democrats are so useless, etc.
The US economy is humming along nicely. Unemployment is near all time lows. There's been a massive tax cut. (Albeit the US is now running a massive fiscal deficit, but that's another story altogether.)
The issue for the US is that next year, there won't be the boost from a tax cut, and the deficit will be just as large. There's also the risk that Trump's trade policies result in inflation moving up.
Mr. Slade, how very dare you mock my fantastic find?!
Incidentally, surprised there are two Morleys. Second one threw me, as it took a while for me to find 'Ledes'.
Mr. Eagles, and Cameron, who included it in the manifesto and seemed oddly complacent about the very tight polling?
Do you think we'll end up with no deal, then a second referendum?
No, I think we'll leave no matter what in March 2019.
If it is sustained No Deal/WTO Brexit then the question is not if but when we Rejoin the EU.
Most Leavers said No Deal/WTO Brexit wasn't going to happen, their credibility will be shot to pieces a bit like the Tories after Black Wednesday or the appeasers in 1940.
I'm doubtful if no deal/WTO will actually happen. We may get very close to it, within an inch or two of th edge of the cliff, but when supermarkets start warning of foood shortages there will be panic buying and a collapse in sterling and this will create an atmosphere of crisis in which anything could happen, including a second referendum or extension of article 50. Which I think is what the EU is hoping for - a humiliated U.K. being forced to seek terms.
There was a theory going round (someone may have posted the link here) that there was a secret contingency plan that, in the case of a No Deal, the US would step in to provide supplies. I could certainly see the Donald doing that to p1ss off Merkel et al...
I thought not much of it but then last week it turns out the US has kick started the process for a UK-US trade deal
' Philip Hammond is basking in the biggest upgrade to UK public finances in many decades and can now plan his October 29 Budget without having to announce immediate unpopular tax increases.
The Office for Budget Responsibility is set to give the chancellor much more room for manoeuvre by producing new forecasts showing that borrowing in 2018-19 will be about £13bn lower than it forecast in March and will say that this improvement will persist through the five year forecasting period, which ends in 2023-24. '
If this is true then Hammond should be able to announce quite a bit of good news.
A £13bn reduction in the borrowing forecast is rather more than I would have expected but perhaps the OBR is keen to undershoot after a few years of embarrassing overshoots in its forecasts.
Don't worry Mr and Mrs Glumbuckets (Hammond and May) will still be able to to produce a "downer" budget.
You really are gloomy.
It is not that bad and TM will deliver brexit, maybe not wto brexit, but a brexit good for jobs and more NHS investment
That's precisely my point. I'd expect his popularity to be around 35%. But the Democrats are so useless, etc.
The US economy is humming along nicely. Unemployment is near all time lows. There's been a massive tax cut. (Albeit the US is now running a massive fiscal deficit, but that's another story altogether.)
The issue for the US is that next year, there won't be the boost from a tax cut, and the deficit will be just as large. There's also the risk that Trump's trade policies result in inflation moving up.
Any thoughts as to why the UK budget deficit is falling fast and the UK trade deficit is doing likewise - even though expenditure on retail sales and foreign holidays are at all time highs.
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
There’s another view: (3) he should have negotiated much harder and with more conviction from his 2013 Bloomberg speech, played the EU negations longer on that to 2017 or even 2018 and absolutely put Britain’s membership on the line for that, before getting a new draft treaty done.
He’d then have still had Farage and Redwood against him but would have got most Conservatives with him and won 60/40.
He basically thought he’d get away with it, and didn’t know how weak his real position was.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
It is an interesting lesson for the ultras, and indeed everyone, that the use of abusive and intemperate language more often than not rebounds on the portrayers.
Following the lurid weekend headlines directed at TM, we have seen a wave of condemnation from the media, across the HOC, and tonight at the 1922 committee meeting.
It is good to see payback on those who abuse others as TM has a successful 1922 meeting
Mr. Slade, how very dare you mock my fantastic find?!
Incidentally, surprised there are two Morleys. Second one threw me, as it took a while for me to find 'Ledes'.
Mr. Eagles, and Cameron, who included it in the manifesto and seemed oddly complacent about the very tight polling?
Do you think we'll end up with no deal, then a second referendum?
No, I think we'll leave no matter what in March 2019.
If it is sustained No Deal/WTO Brexit then the question is not if but when we Rejoin the EU.
Most Leavers said No Deal/WTO Brexit wasn't going to happen, their credibility will be shot to pieces a bit like the Tories after Black Wednesday or the appeasers in 1940.
The EU won’t offer us anything but standard terms (euro, schengen and full federalism) to re-join.
That will make it very hard for re-join to win, and easy for stay out to win, even if no deal is sustained and a bit of a car crash.
All the more reason for a #peoplesvote before we leave
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
There’s another view: (3) he should have negotiated much harder and with more conviction from his 2013 Bloomberg speech, played the EU negations longer on that to 2017 or even 2018 and absolutely put Britain’s membership on the line for that, before getting a new draft treaty done.
He’d then have still had Farage and Redwood against him but would have got most Conservatives with him and won 60/40.
He basically thought he’d get away with it, and didn’t know how weak his real position was.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
Somewhere on the internet there is a lengthy explanation by one of the senior civil servants who supported Cameron through this process, which said that Cameron tried hard and actually secured a reasonable deal on almost all of the key issues, building on the opt outs we already enjoyed from the Major years, with the one critical exception that he didn't pick up freedom of movement (i.e. Immigration) as the critical issue until it was to late to table it as part of his demands.
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
There’s another view: (3) he should have negotiated much harder and with more conviction from his 2013 Bloomberg speech, played the EU negations longer on that to 2017 or even 2018 and absolutely put Britain’s membership on the line for that, before getting a new draft treaty done.
He’d then have still had Farage and Redwood against him but would have got most Conservatives with him and won 60/40.
He basically thought he’d get away with it, and didn’t know how weak his real position was.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
Mr. Slade, how very dare you mock my fantastic find?!
Incidentally, surprised there are two Morleys. Second one threw me, as it took a while for me to find 'Ledes'.
Mr. Eagles, and Cameron, who included it in the manifesto and seemed oddly complacent about the very tight polling?
Do you think we'll end up with no deal, then a second referendum?
No, I think we'll leave no matter what in March 2019.
If it is sustained No Deal/WTO Brexit then the question is not if but when we Rejoin the EU.
Most Leavers said No Deal/WTO Brexit wasn't going to happen, their credibility will be shot to pieces a bit like the Tories after Black Wednesday or the appeasers in 1940.
The EU won’t offer us anything but standard terms (euro, schengen and full federalism) to re-join.
That will make it very hard for re-join to win, and easy for stay out to win, even if no deal is sustained and a bit of a car crash.
Don't talk Britain down. We can negotiate a good deal to get back in - even if we have dropped behind France and are now only the sixth biggest economy in the world we are still a catch.
If we don't want to join the Euro and Schengen we won't have to. But speaking personally I'd be happy with both. And we don't know what the circumstances will be when we rejoin. If the pound has had a torrid time of it outside the EU the Euro might look very attractive.
I’d be the very last person in the world to talk Britain down but I don’t see any sign of flexibility from the EU on this.
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
There’s another view: (3) he should have negotiated much harder and with more conviction from his 2013 Bloomberg speech, played the EU negations longer on that to 2017 or even 2018 and absolutely put Britain’s membership on the line for that, before getting a new draft treaty done.
He’d then have still had Farage and Redwood against him but would have got most Conservatives with him and won 60/40.
He basically thought he’d get away with it, and didn’t know how weak his real position was.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
What information did Cameron have , when he suddenly made that unannounced speech outside Downing Street a few days before the referendum vote .?
Did he realise there was a real chance of defeat for remain ?
I think that R +1 overall is the likeliest outcome in the Senate.
Given the states up this time, and how many the Democrats are defending, that's actually a pretty good result for them.
Yes, if the Dems limit their losses to 1 or 2 seats then they have an excellent chance of regaining the Senate in 2020 when the map is much more favourable.
I'm feeling much more bullish about the Dems Senate chances now. I think they'll hold FL, MO and MT and pick up AZ and NV, but the GOP will take ND, giving the Dems a net gain of one seat and so make Mike Pence work for his living by having to be President of the Senate in actuality in order to exercise his casting vote.
I wouldn't rule out the Dems taking one more state, TN most likely but maybe, just maybe, TX, and therefore control of the Senate but I don't think that will actually happen.
Even if it does go to an equally split Senate, it should also be noted that the Dems seem likely to do very well in this year's gubernatorial elections, which might up the chances of a future R Senate vacancy being turned D between now and the 2020 elections.
I had lunch in Gaucho today, there were some out there saying Gaucho and their customers were responsible for global warming 'cause of the beef they serve.
I had the swordfish.
Brave choice, given all the mercury in it, and the research suggesting it doubles your chances of ending up like Stephen Hawking...
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
There’s another view: (3) he should have negotiated much harder and with more conviction from his 2013 Bloomberg speech, played the EU negations longer on that to 2017 or even 2018 and absolutely put Britain’s membership on the line for that, before getting a new draft treaty done.
He’d then have still had Farage and Redwood against him but would have got most Conservatives with him and won 60/40.
He basically thought he’d get away with it, and didn’t know how weak his real position was.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
Somewhere on the internet there is a lengthy explanation by one of the senior civil servants who supported Cameron through this process, which said that Cameron tried hard and actually secured a reasonable deal on almost all of the key issues, building on the opt outs we already enjoyed from the Major years, with the one critical exception that he didn't pick up freedom of movement (i.e. Immigration) as the critical issue until it was to late to table it as part of his demands.
Considering that his general election manifestos referred to reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands that seems like rather an oversight.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
Somewhere on the internet there is a lengthy explanation by one of the senior civil servants who supported Cameron through this process, which said that Cameron tried hard and actually secured a reasonable deal on almost all of the key issues, building on the opt outs we already enjoyed from the Major years, with the one critical exception that he didn't pick up freedom of movement (i.e. Immigration) as the critical issue until it was to late to table it as part of his demands.
the problem that Cameron came up against was that every time he tried to get something substantive on immigration the EU said that "you can't have that as a member of the EU".. they never saw the internal UK political pressure on immigration as relevant to them as it was 'good immigration' (ie EU citizens making use of the freedoms that they have been granted). I think that the migration crisis has had a impact on EU leaders thoughts on what is possible with immigration. Had he waited two years to start (or end) the negotiation he'd have a more understanding EU to negotiate with.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
Somewhere on the internet there is a lengthy explanation by one of the senior civil servants who supported Cameron through this process, which said that Cameron tried hard and actually secured a reasonable deal on almost all of the key issues, building on the opt outs we already enjoyed from the Major years, with the one critical exception that he didn't pick up freedom of movement (i.e. Immigration) as the critical issue until it was to late to table it as part of his demands.
the problem that Cameron came up against was that every time he tried to get something substantive on immigration the EU said that "you can't have that as a member of the EU".. they never saw the internal UK political pressure on immigration as relevant to them as it was 'good immigration' (ie EU citizens making use of the freedoms that they have been granted). I think that the migration crisis has had a impact on EU leaders thoughts on what is possible with immigration. Had he waited two years to start (or end) the negotiation he'd have a more understanding EU to negotiate with.
The article as I recall suggested rather that he was blindsided by it. I guess Lincolnshire has somewhat more EU migrants than Chipping Norton.
The biggest problem for the Democrats is that according to a recent survey 80% of Americans think political correctness and identity politics is a bad thing, yet the party is filled with members of the 8% who think it's a good thing, to put it as simply as possible.
Seems the EU has more problems tonight. Italy going all rogue and accusing Junckers of interfering in a nation state and Conte intending going to Russia seeking support.
Germany stops arm sales to Saudi Arabia while Macron has no intention of following and Spain says it has no intention of not supporting Saudi
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
There’s another view: (3) he should have negotiated much harder and with more conviction from his 2013 Bloomberg speech, played the EU negations longer on that to 2017 or even 2018 and absolutely put Britain’s membership on the line for that, before getting a new draft treaty done.
He’d then have still had Farage and Redwood against him but would have got most Conservatives with him and won 60/40.
He basically thought he’d get away with it, and didn’t know how weak his real position was.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
Somewhere on the internet there is a lengthy explanation by one of the senior civil servants who supported Cameron through this process, which said that Cameron tried hard and actually secured a reasonable deal on almost all of the key issues, building on the opt outs we already enjoyed from the Major years, with the one critical exception that he didn't pick up freedom of movement (i.e. Immigration) as the critical issue until it was to late to table it as part of his demands.
Seems the EU has more problems tonight. Italy going all rogue and accusing Junckers of interfering in a nation state and Conte intending going to Russia seeking support.
Germany stops arm sales to Saudi Arabia while Macron has no intention of following and Spain says it has no intention of not supporting Saudi
just shows how much sovereignty nations in the EU have!
the problem that Cameron came up against was that every time he tried to get something substantive on immigration the EU said that "you can't have that as a member of the EU".. they never saw the internal UK political pressure on immigration as relevant to them as it was 'good immigration' (ie EU citizens making use of the freedoms that they have been granted). I think that the migration crisis has had a impact on EU leaders thoughts on what is possible with immigration. Had he waited two years to start (or end) the negotiation he'd have a more understanding EU to negotiate with.
The article as I recall suggested rather that he was blindsided by it. I guess Lincolnshire has somewhat more EU migrants than Chipping Norton.
the problem for a lot of people outside chipping norton (especially in areas like lincolnshire, norfolk, suffolk etc) was that over the period of 10 years following the accession of the 10 new countries there was a significant influx of people who changed the feeling of small towns. they also (due to unscrupulous factory owners) drove down wages in the agriculture and food processing industries. not a surprise people voted to leave
Even if it does go to an equally split Senate, it should also be noted that the Dems seem likely to do very well in this year's gubernatorial elections, which might up the chances of a future R Senate vacancy being turned D between now and the 2020 elections.
This hasn't been remarked on enough, but the Dems are doing extremely well in the polls for Governors: they look to pick up net 6 or 7.
the problem that Cameron came up against was that every time he tried to get something substantive on immigration the EU said that "you can't have that as a member of the EU".. they never saw the internal UK political pressure on immigration as relevant to them as it was 'good immigration' (ie EU citizens making use of the freedoms that they have been granted). I think that the migration crisis has had a impact on EU leaders thoughts on what is possible with immigration. Had he waited two years to start (or end) the negotiation he'd have a more understanding EU to negotiate with.
The article as I recall suggested rather that he was blindsided by it. I guess Lincolnshire has somewhat more EU migrants than Chipping Norton.
the problem for a lot of people outside chipping norton (especially in areas like lincolnshire, norfolk, suffolk etc) was that over the period of 10 years following the accession of the 10 new countries there was a significant influx of people who changed the feeling of small towns. they also (due to unscrupulous factory owners) drove down wages in the agriculture and food processing industries. not a surprise people voted to leave
Though some of the most Leave voting areas, such as South Wales or Copeland, had little immigration and declining populations.
Seems the EU has more problems tonight. Italy going all rogue and accusing Junckers of interfering in a nation state and Conte intending going to Russia seeking support.
Germany stops arm sales to Saudi Arabia while Macron has no intention of following and Spain says it has no intention of not supporting Saudi
On the subject of Italy, this is why the European Commission cannot back down:
That's precisely my point. I'd expect his popularity to be around 35%. But the Democrats are so useless, etc.
The US economy is humming along nicely. Unemployment is near all time lows. There's been a massive tax cut. (Albeit the US is now running a massive fiscal deficit, but that's another story altogether.)
The issue for the US is that next year, there won't be the boost from a tax cut, and the deficit will be just as large. There's also the risk that Trump's trade policies result in inflation moving up.
Any thoughts as to why the UK budget deficit is falling fast and the UK trade deficit is doing likewise - even though expenditure on retail sales and foreign holidays are at all time highs.
The two are interrelated - because the nation's savings rate is government plus corporate plus household. And while household saving has improved a little bit, government saving is improving by quite a lot. This pulls the current account deficit down.
With a bit of luck, as we all save more for our pensions, the household savings rate should tick up a little next year, and the current account close somewhat. We're also helped by the US's expansionary budgets, which mean the US is going to run a bigger current account deficit than expected.
the problem that Cameron came up against was that every time he tried to get something substantive on immigration the EU said that "you can't have that as a member of the EU".. they never saw the internal UK political pressure on immigration as relevant to them as it was 'good immigration' (ie EU citizens making use of the freedoms that they have been granted). I think that the migration crisis has had a impact on EU leaders thoughts on what is possible with immigration. Had he waited two years to start (or end) the negotiation he'd have a more understanding EU to negotiate with.
The article as I recall suggested rather that he was blindsided by it. I guess Lincolnshire has somewhat more EU migrants than Chipping Norton.
the problem for a lot of people outside chipping norton (especially in areas like lincolnshire, norfolk, suffolk etc) was that over the period of 10 years following the accession of the 10 new countries there was a significant influx of people who changed the feeling of small towns. they also (due to unscrupulous factory owners) drove down wages in the agriculture and food processing industries. not a surprise people voted to leave
Though some of the most Leave voting areas, such as South Wales or Copeland, had little immigration and declining populations.
I couldn't comment on those areas specifically but from my experience the people who voted leave were in areas which didn't see the benefits of the EU/globalisation and the areas which voted remain are those who did.
Seems the EU has more problems tonight. Italy going all rogue and accusing Junckers of interfering in a nation state and Conte intending going to Russia seeking support.
Germany stops arm sales to Saudi Arabia while Macron has no intention of following and Spain says it has no intention of not supporting Saudi
On the subject of Italy, this is why the European Commission cannot back down:
Seems the EU has more problems tonight. Italy going all rogue and accusing Junckers of interfering in a nation state and Conte intending going to Russia seeking support.
Germany stops arm sales to Saudi Arabia while Macron has no intention of following and Spain says it has no intention of not supporting Saudi
On the subject of Italy, this is why the European Commission cannot back down:
If they do, then it will be their Abyssinia moment - with them cast as the League of Nations.
There's another thing: France's GDP is growing at about 1.6% real, 2.9% nominal. A 2.5% budget deficit, therefore, sees its debt-to-GDP shrink somewhat.
Italy has sub 2% nominal GDP growth, and quite possibly sub 1.5%. That means that a 2.5% budget deficit sees debt-to-GDP expand.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
Somewhere on the internet there is a lengthy explanation by one of the senior civil servants who supported Cameron through this process, which said that Cameron tried hard and actually secured a reasonable deal on almost all of the key issues, building on the opt outs we already enjoyed from the Major years, with the one critical exception that he didn't pick up freedom of movement (i.e. Immigration) as the critical issue until it was to late to table it as part of his demands.
the problem that Cameron came up against was that every time he tried to get something substantive on immigration the EU said that "you can't have that as a member of the EU".. they never saw the internal UK political pressure on immigration as relevant to them as it was 'good immigration' (ie EU citizens making use of the freedoms that they have been granted). I think that the migration crisis has had a impact on EU leaders thoughts on what is possible with immigration. Had he waited two years to start (or end) the negotiation he'd have a more understanding EU to negotiate with.
We don't apply the EU migration controls we are allowed to at the moment!
All Cameron had to do was apply the powers he already had.
Cameron's incompetence, combined with his grandiose claims on immigration numbers, is not the EU's fault.
the problem that Cameron came up against was that every time he tried to get something substantive on immigration the EU said that "you can't have that as a member of the EU".. they never saw the internal UK political pressure on immigration as relevant to them as it was 'good immigration' (ie EU citizens making use of the freedoms that they have been granted). I think that the migration crisis has had a impact on EU leaders thoughts on what is possible with immigration. Had he waited two years to start (or end) the negotiation he'd have a more understanding EU to negotiate with.
The article as I recall suggested rather that he was blindsided by it. I guess Lincolnshire has somewhat more EU migrants than Chipping Norton.
the problem for a lot of people outside chipping norton (especially in areas like lincolnshire, norfolk, suffolk etc) was that over the period of 10 years following the accession of the 10 new countries there was a significant influx of people who changed the feeling of small towns. they also (due to unscrupulous factory owners) drove down wages in the agriculture and food processing industries. not a surprise people voted to leave
Though some of the most Leave voting areas, such as South Wales or Copeland, had little immigration and declining populations.
I couldn't comment on those areas specifically but from my experience the people who voted leave were in areas which didn't see the benefits of the EU/globalisation and the areas which voted remain are those who did.
To some extent, which is why an open global Britain will not satisfy them.
More globalisation is not the answer to the problems of globalisation.
Leaving aside foreign policy disagreements, I could imagine former spuproters like Southam feeling that this made a lot of sense.
With respect Nick nothing McDonnell says makes sense. It ia all higher taxes on individuals and business, higher borrowing, more for welfare payments, more money swallowed by state in inefficient bodies, more power to the unions to hold the state at ransom, and so it goes on
Apparently Corbyn did not go to Tessa Jowell’s recent memorial service.
He was at an anti-fracking meeting. Nothing wrong with that of course.
Still not to attend the memorial service, given that he is the leader of the party that Dame Tessa loyally served for decades seems to me to be a little shabby. Being leader invoves having responsibilities which are of the office and do not just relate to your own political interests.
If he could find time yesterday to meet the King and Queen of the Netherlands he could have found time for the Jowell memorial service. Badly done, Jezza.
Cameron's negotiation was rushed and half-hearted presumably because he wanted it out of the way to get on with the things he was really interested in. Whatever those were. It was a bit arrogant and the renegotiation ultimately played no part in the campaign as far as I could tell.
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
Somewhere on the internet there is a lengthy explanation by one of the senior civil servants who supported Cameron through this process, which said that Cameron tried hard and actually secured a reasonable deal on almost all of the key issues, building on the opt outs we already enjoyed from the Major years, with the one critical exception that he didn't pick up freedom of movement (i.e. Immigration) as the critical issue until it was to late to table it as part of his demands.
the problem that Cameron came up against was that every time he tried to get something substantive on immigration the EU said that "you can't have that as a member of the EU".. they never saw the internal UK political pressure on immigration as relevant to them as it was 'good immigration' (ie EU citizens making use of the freedoms that they have been granted). I think that the migration crisis has had a impact on EU leaders thoughts on what is possible with immigration. Had he waited two years to start (or end) the negotiation he'd have a more understanding EU to negotiate with.
We don't apply the EU migration controls we are allowed to at the moment!
All Cameron had to do was apply the powers he already had.
Cameron's incompetence, combined with his grandiose claims on immigration numbers, is not the EU's fault.
Very true, I always found that one a bit odd. I feel the interpretations of EU law by our courts always lead to leave pushback too.
Apparently Corbyn did not go to Tessa Jowell’s recent memorial service.
He was at an anti-fracking meeting. Nothing wrong with that of course.
Still not to attend the memorial service, given that he is the leader of the party that Dame Tessa loyally served for decades seems to me to be a little shabby. Being leader invoves having responsibilities which are of the office and do not just relate to your own political interests.
If he could find time yesterday to meet the King and Queen of the Netherlands he could have found time for the Jowell memorial service. Badly done, Jezza.
Not as bad as Blair not going to Robin Cooks funeral.
Seems the EU has more problems tonight. Italy going all rogue and accusing Junckers of interfering in a nation state and Conte intending going to Russia seeking support.
Germany stops arm sales to Saudi Arabia while Macron has no intention of following and Spain says it has no intention of not supporting Saudi
Whereas what has today proved for May?
For all the fuss and furore, the fundamentals are the same as they've been since June 2016 - no other alternative Conservative leader polls better and many poll worse. No sane Conservative (and I realise that lets out a few) is going to intentionally give Corbyn the keys to Downing Street.
With May the backbenchers in marginal seats have a fighting chance of survival but they are now trapped in the ditch with the Prime Minister and will have to vote for any deal she brings back from the A50 negotiations because the No Deal alternative is political and economic suicide (not in that order).
They are also on the hook of their own ludicrous Unionism which yokes them to whatever nonsensical deal preserves that Union and if that means CU for the whole UK (with all that entails for our economic sovereignty and ability to make trade deals) so be it.
Comments
In the Lancaster House speech in Jan 17, May committed to leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union. Vote Leave’s ‘manifesto’ said we’d be leaving both. That requires checks at Dover and on the Irish border.
The failure to plan and spend money to make even rudimentary preparations for that is what is negligent. Competent management and organisations make plans for worst-case scenarios.
They said Brexit would lead to no disruption and sunlit uplands.
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/exiting-the-european-union-committee/news-parliament-2015/negotiating-objectives-for-eu-withdrawal-evidence-16-17/
Trump has a low ceiling ie he will not get over 50% but also a high floor of around 40%
The quality of most food in the US is very poor compared to European countries.
America has a lot of conservatives
I had the swordfish.
But, they overshot and the whole world was turned upside down.
That will make it very hard for re-join to win, and easy for stay out to win, even if no deal is sustained and a bit of a car crash.
He didn’t know just how successful he’d be or just how craply the Remain arguments would land.
1) He never expected moderates to back Leave, he had wargamed for Leave to be fronted by the likes of Farage and Redwood, and was doubly thrown when Vote Leave ran the campaign he expected Leave.EU would
2) He should have gone blue on blue
Last night, one of the Prime Minister’s most senior aides made an outspoken attack on eurosceptics who have argued that Mr Cameron could get a better deal if the UK voted to leave the EU first - and then held another negotiation, followed by a second referendum.
The senior Number 10 figure said it was “ridiculous” to suggest that Mr Cameron would be willing to countenance a second referendum.
It will be seen as a rebuke in particular to Boris Johnson, who is believed to back the idea, and Dominic Cummings, Michael Gove’s former adviser, who is now helping to run the Out campaign, Vote Leave.
Mr Johnson, the Mayor of London, is said to have told friends that he wanted the public to vote to leave the EU because this would force Brussels to offer far better terms which the public could then support in a second referendum.
Besides which we don’t know, if Boris had won the Tory leadership, that he might not have done precisely that.
I suspect the EU and he would have rehashed and tweaked Cameron’s deal before he proclaimed it a huge success.
I think Gove would actually have (gently) taken us out.
‘Ee should be ‘eld account for it.
Twat.
https://twitter.com/BBCNormanS/status/1055145145442680832?s=20
And:
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1055147865180389378?s=20
He’d then have still had Farage and Redwood against him but would have got most Conservatives with him and won 60/40.
He basically thought he’d get away with it, and didn’t know how weak his real position was.
This was a fill-in-the-blanks job. The modification I wanted was a 6 month break (to match my job) which I wrote for them in the end because they kept drafting it incomprehensibly.
This time there was some admin. I got my checklist and my Government mandated booklet and an actual human being to give it all to me. But sometimes there isn't. I made my conditions clear when I gave them the holding contract, but again, I don't think it would have prevented an argument. They were apologetic in the end about it.
I wish more landlords took good tenants over a few extra quid!
If we don't want to join the Euro and Schengen we won't have to. But speaking personally I'd be happy with both. And we don't know what the circumstances will be when we rejoin. If the pound has had a torrid time of it outside the EU the Euro might look very attractive.
Sky News can reveal that Debenhams will report a statutory annual loss of almost £500m for the year to 1 September.
The mass of red ink on its accounts will arise from an overall charge of more than £500m - offsetting underlying profits of about £33m - relating to goodwill and impairments connected to store leases and IT systems.
Alongside the full-year loss, Debenhams will confirm the closure of one-third of its 165 stores over the next five years, a stark upward revision from earlier guidance that around ten of its stores were facing the axe.
That closure programme will entail the eventual loss of thousands of jobs from its 27,000-strong UK workforce, although Debenhams is not expected to set out details of the headcount changes or affected individual stores on Thursday.
Approximately 5,000 jobs are ultimately expected to be affected by the existing restructuring plans over a five-year period.
https://news.sky.com/story/debenhams-to-report-biggest-loss-in-240-year-history-as-stores-face-axe-11534561
' Philip Hammond is basking in the biggest upgrade to UK public finances in many decades and can now plan his October 29 Budget without having to announce immediate unpopular tax increases.
The Office for Budget Responsibility is set to give the chancellor much more room for manoeuvre by producing new forecasts showing that borrowing in 2018-19 will be about £13bn lower than it forecast in March and will say that this improvement will persist through the five year forecasting period, which ends in 2023-24. '
https://www.ft.com/content/f4b67802-d6b4-11e8-a854-33d6f82e62f8
If this is true then Hammond should be able to announce quite a bit of good news.
A £13bn reduction in the borrowing forecast is rather more than I would have expected but perhaps the OBR is keen to undershoot after a few years of embarrassing overshoots in its forecasts.
The issue for the US is that next year, there won't be the boost from a tax cut, and the deficit will be just as large. There's also the risk that Trump's trade policies result in inflation moving up.
Re the US, are you following the Open Skies replacement negotiations?
It is not that bad and TM will deliver brexit, maybe not wto brexit, but a brexit good for jobs and more NHS investment
This seems like insincerity on Cameron's part - that he didn't think it was really necessary, but he had to go through the motions. The polling before the renegotiation concluded suggested that a convincing renegotiation could have won the referendum by 2:1. Cameron fluffed it, the public could tell, and Leave prevailed.
Following the lurid weekend headlines directed at TM, we have seen a wave of condemnation from the media, across the HOC, and tonight at the 1922 committee meeting.
It is good to see payback on those who abuse others as TM has a successful 1922 meeting
If there were, we wouldn’t be here.
Did he realise there was a real chance of defeat for remain ?
I wouldn't rule out the Dems taking one more state, TN most likely but maybe, just maybe, TX, and therefore control of the Senate but I don't think that will actually happen.
Even if it does go to an equally split Senate, it should also be noted that the Dems seem likely to do very well in this year's gubernatorial elections, which might up the chances of a future R Senate vacancy being turned D between now and the 2020 elections.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/10/12/80_say_political_correctness_is_a_national_problem_456098.html
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/12/80-percent-of-americans-think-political-correctness-is-a-national-problem/
Germany stops arm sales to Saudi Arabia while Macron has no intention of following and Spain says it has no intention of not supporting Saudi
For those that want to read it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/24/france-2019-budget-is-also-a-concern-for-brussels.html
If they do, then it will be their Abyssinia moment - with them cast as the League of Nations.
With a bit of luck, as we all save more for our pensions, the household savings rate should tick up a little next year, and the current account close somewhat. We're also helped by the US's expansionary budgets, which mean the US is going to run a bigger current account deficit than expected.
Was just under 5 (4-1) earlier this evening.
Italy has sub 2% nominal GDP growth, and quite possibly sub 1.5%. That means that a 2.5% budget deficit sees debt-to-GDP expand.
Most recent 20 polls:
Tory leads: 14
Labour leads: 4
Ties: 2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2018
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/24/labour-preparing-anti-austerity-budget-to-win-back-brexit-supporters
Leaving aside foreign policy disagreements, I could imagine former spuproters like Southam feeling that this made a lot of sense.
All Cameron had to do was apply the powers he already had.
Cameron's incompetence, combined with his grandiose claims on immigration numbers, is not the EU's fault.
More globalisation is not the answer to the problems of globalisation.
He was at an anti-fracking meeting. Nothing wrong with that of course.
Still not to attend the memorial service, given that he is the leader of the party that Dame Tessa loyally served for decades seems to me to be a little shabby. Being leader invoves having responsibilities which are of the office and do not just relate to your own political interests.
If he could find time yesterday to meet the King and Queen of the Netherlands he could have found time for the Jowell memorial service. Badly done, Jezza.
For all the fuss and furore, the fundamentals are the same as they've been since June 2016 - no other alternative Conservative leader polls better and many poll worse. No sane Conservative (and I realise that lets out a few) is going to intentionally give Corbyn the keys to Downing Street.
With May the backbenchers in marginal seats have a fighting chance of survival but they are now trapped in the ditch with the Prime Minister and will have to vote for any deal she brings back from the A50 negotiations because the No Deal alternative is political and economic suicide (not in that order).
They are also on the hook of their own ludicrous Unionism which yokes them to whatever nonsensical deal preserves that Union and if that means CU for the whole UK (with all that entails for our economic sovereignty and ability to make trade deals) so be it.