Ah. I read a newspaper article recently that mis-wrote "to the manor born" as "to the manner born" and, if we assume that Rees-Mogg made a similar homophonical mix-up in his youth, hearing "manors make the man" where "manners make the man" was intended then it would explain much. Simple mistake!
The original is from Hamlet and is "to the manner born" refering to a custom that he was not happy with.
If May cannot convince her own party that it is a good deal, then why should other parties believe her?
No reason why they should believe May but they should table serious meaningful amendments, not this old tosh. Either that or don't bother tabling amendments.
Andrea Leadsom apparently sent a letter to all her constituents affirming the deal
Maybe evidence of the pressure constituency chairman are under to support TM
Even effect of Daily Mail in the heartlands
Sensible. While I'd vote Nay if I was a backbencher, if I was in her shoes I'd show loyalty at this point. Unless TM can magically carry a majority it doesn't matter and so better to be inside the tent pissing out waiting to step up to shape what happens next after the defeat.
Labour's policy on Brexit is meaningless waffle and that should be criticised. But Labour's amendment declining consent to the WA needs to be meaningless waffle. It needs to attract the DUP and ERGers if it's to pass.
Labour's policy on Brexit is meaningless waffle and that should be criticised. But Labour's amendment declining consent to the WA needs to be meaningless waffle. It needs to attract the DUP and ERGers if it's to pass.
Do they have to pass Labour's amendment? Can't they just vote against the WA itself?
Theresa's successor will surely have to ban the ERG and expel its members. This is a highly destructive yet highly organized entity with its own agenda and ideology. No one voted for it yet it wields extraordinary power as a parasite within the Tory party. It must be cut out.
It's amazing how long it has taken for sensible Tories to work this out. If Cameron had taken on the nutters when the first became leader the story of both him and his party would have been very different. But, like Chamberlain in a different context, he decided that appeasement was easier than confrontation and hoped that if he ignored the problem for long enough it would go away.
Andrea Leadsom apparently sent a letter to all her constituents affirming the deal
Maybe evidence of the pressure constituency chairman are under to support TM
Even effect of Daily Mail in the heartlands
Do you mind me asking if you have written to your constituency chair in support of the deal?
No because our constituency is in chaos and in measures. My mp, Geto Bebb wants a referendum and David Jones next door is a brexiteer. Sums up the divisions in next door constituencies
However, I expect the mail is important reading for them in a very conservative area
Thanks WG. I can't see how clauses beginning "Declines to approve..." are really amendments but maybe that is the nature of a MV?
In a local authority that would be called negating the motion and ruled out of order as an amendment; they would be advised simply to vote against the motion. In simply terms "yes, buts" are amendments but "no, buts" are not. Much of Labour wanted to move "yes, but a referendum" but of course not being able to agree this internally they have simply served up this trifle.
Labour's policy on Brexit is meaningless waffle and that should be criticised. But Labour's amendment declining consent to the WA needs to be meaningless waffle. It needs to attract the DUP and ERGers if it's to pass.
Do they have to pass Labour's amendment? Can't they just vote against the WA itself?
I understand all amendments are voted on first and the WDA will be the last vote, but subject to any successful amendments
Andrea Leadsom apparently sent a letter to all her constituents affirming the deal
Maybe evidence of the pressure constituency chairman are under to support TM
Even effect of Daily Mail in the heartlands
Do you mind me asking if you have written to your constituency chair in support of the deal?
No because our constituency is in chaos and in measures. My mp, Geto Bebb wants a referendum and David Jones next door is a brexiteer. Sums up the divisions in next door constituencies
However, I expect the mail is important reading for them in a very conservative area
Yes fair enough. Constituency in measures - blimey!
Thanks WG. I can't see how clauses beginning "Declines to approve..." are really amendments but maybe that is the nature of a MV?
In a local authority that would be called negating the motion and ruled out of order as an amendment; they would be advised simply to vote against the motion. In simply terms "yes, buts" are amendments but "no, buts" are not. Much of Labour wanted to move "yes, but a referendum" but of course not being able to agree this internally they have simply served up this trifle.
Just been watching the BBC4 programmes about the Royal Cousins (George V, Nicholas II and Wilhelm II); the similarities between Wilhelm and Trump are striking.
Andrea Leadsom apparently sent a letter to all her constituents affirming the deal
Maybe evidence of the pressure constituency chairman are under to support TM
Even effect of Daily Mail in the heartlands
Do you mind me asking if you have written to your constituency chair in support of the deal?
No because our constituency is in chaos and in measures. My mp, Geto Bebb wants a referendum and David Jones next door is a brexiteer. Sums up the divisions in next door constituencies
However, I expect the mail is important reading for them in a very conservative area
It might be that high, it might not, but whether Brexit happens or unravels the Tories have looked divided and incompetent, and they have been in power for 8 years already. The scale of defeat depends on just how much more they cock it up. If by their cock ups Brexit doesn't happen at all, I could see a big big impact.
If May cannot convince her own party that it is a good deal, then why should other parties believe her?
It is just a wish list and nonsense
So why is it that she cannot convince her own party?
Why should other parties believe her?
Nothing TM could say or do would convince you. Labour are split and that is coming to a head for all to see shortly in the various votes
No, the deal is much as I suspected it would be, largely dictated by the EU.
It is the Tories that are split over it, other parties are much more united in their positions.
Not labour.
On the deal Labour are almost unanimous. They might not have been had the Tories not been so split to provide no incentive for Labour waverers to think about rebelling, but that is not where we are. Corbyn could get more MPs behind a position than the government.
Thanks WG. I can't see how clauses beginning "Declines to approve..." are really amendments but maybe that is the nature of a MV?
Who knows. I don;t see how such an amendment impacts legislation though, so it looks like a gimmick to preserve as long as possible the impression all options are on the table. I wish Labour would just come out for Remain already. I know why they haven't, but the writing is on the wall and pretty soon remain is going to gain critical mass, so they might as well get out ahead of it.
Just been watching the BBC4 programmes about the Royal Cousins (George V, Nicholas II and Wilhelm II); the similarities between Wilhelm and Trump are striking.
I'll have to watch those.
I think they were repeats from a few years ago but they were really interesting - some fascinating very early footage.
If May cannot convince her own party that it is a good deal, then why should other parties believe her?
It is just a wish list and nonsense
So why is it that she cannot convince her own party?
Why should other parties believe her?
Well if, for sake of argument, that the deal is the best option even if May is a bad saleswoman, then super smart opposition MPs should be able to spot that. And surely they would agree they are better than the other parties, and so be better able to tell what is good or not - Labour don't typically judge whether an idea is bad by seeing how many Tories oppose it.
Of course I am sure they believe the deal truly is bad. They also believe in substantial renegotiation fairies.
Andrea Leadsom apparently sent a letter to all her constituents affirming the deal
Maybe evidence of the pressure constituency chairman are under to support TM
Even effect of Daily Mail in the heartlands
Do you mind me asking if you have written to your constituency chair in support of the deal?
No because our constituency is in chaos and in measures. My mp, Geto Bebb wants a referendum and David Jones next door is a brexiteer. Sums up the divisions in next door constituencies
However, I expect the mail is important reading for them in a very conservative area
What exactly does "in measures" mean?
I cannot go into detail but conversations are on going over merging with other constituencies
Andrea Leadsom apparently sent a letter to all her constituents affirming the deal
Maybe evidence of the pressure constituency chairman are under to support TM
Even effect of Daily Mail in the heartlands
Do you mind me asking if you have written to your constituency chair in support of the deal?
No because our constituency is in chaos and in measures. My mp, Geto Bebb wants a referendum and David Jones next door is a brexiteer. Sums up the divisions in next door constituencies
However, I expect the mail is important reading for them in a very conservative area
What exactly does "in measures" mean?
I cannot go into detail but conversations are on going over merging with other constituencies
Does the Electoral Commission know?
Anyway goodnight Big_G - I wish I shared your view that it will not be long to the day of recokoning - suspect we'll be having similar conversations for years to come!
A brief note about the Survation poll in today’s Mail. A lot of responses to this have really got the wrong end of the stick – the Daily Mail have, quite obviously, written it up with a very pro-deal slant and have not focused upon elements of the poll showing support for no-deal or for a fresh referendum. Nevertheless, the core of the story – that more people said they wanted MPs to vote to support the deal than wanted MPs to reject it – is quite correct.
Firstly, lets us address social media claims that the poll actually showed opposition to the deal and that the Mail has lied about it. This is untrue. What actually happened is that when the Daily Mail front page was published yesterday Survation has not yet put up the full tables, so people looking for the full results on Survation’s website stumbled upon their previous poll for the Daily Mail, which had shown people opposed the deal. Today’s poll is different – and that’s the point of the Mail’s splash – the poll suggests public opinion has changed.
President Trump told special counsel Robert Mueller in writing that Roger Stone did not tell him about WikiLeaks, nor was he told about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting, according to two sources familiar with the matter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6j85F3A49k
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
Yeh, right. No offence, but what the hell did he expect?
He will be happy because he was reporting what his team told him. The government will be happy with the coverage because it supports TM. We will just have to see how the chips fall.
Theresa's successor will surely have to ban the ERG and expel its members. This is a highly destructive yet highly organized entity with its own agenda and ideology. No one voted for it yet it wields extraordinary power as a parasite within the Tory party. It must be cut out.
Parties like to be broad churches of course. They like it too much, as it allows people clearly in a party that is heading in a completely opposite direction to one they think is best to pretend they belong. Oh well, all electoral systems have downsides, FPTP's is forcing such unholy alliances together.
More seriously, a split really would be a good thing. But that's a long wishes for dream among internet denizens, and parties find a way to avoid it at all costs. How they'll manage it if, somehow, the May deal passes I do not know - dozens of MPs will be facing having to support a government they just saw sell us into bondage or whatever the latest hyperbolic statement is. A crash out after a failed renegotiation seems less likely to have as significant an impact though, but not no impact.
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
Yeh, right. No offence, but what the hell did he expect?
I think it sounded about right for a crash out where Macron decides to not play ball. Of course it's a risk any MP not voting for the deal is willing to countenance
If May cannot convince her own party that it is a good deal, then why should other parties believe her?
It is just a wish list and nonsense
So why is it that she cannot convince her own party?
Why should other parties believe her?
Nothing TM could say or do would convince you. Labour are split and that is coming to a head for all to see shortly in the various votes
No, the deal is much as I suspected it would be, largely dictated by the EU.
It is the Tories that are split over it, other parties are much more united in their positions.
Not labour.
Are you really expecting Labour MPs to bail the Tory government out of its self inflicted debacle?
Again, not expecting MPs to not care about the national interest in any way I see.
I believe most of those voting against the deal will believe they are acting in the national interest. But that you see a vote that avoids no deal entirely (at a cost which people are weighing carefully, and most appear to think is too much) purely in terms of 'bailing out' the Tory party is very telling. If they believed it to be in the national interest of course I would hope we would all expect Labour to bail out the government, even a Tory government. They don't see it that way, and that is defendable. Shooting it down just because it would be bailing out a Tory government? That would be despicable if that were the only reason.
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
Yeh, right. No offence, but what the hell did he expect?
It’s lazy journalism - the BBC 6 o’clock news had “forecast” in the headlines and “scenarios” in the detailed report, which did explain things properly.
Not on current polling where they are roughly tied with Labour in most polls and Corbyn is no Blair, though No Deal would not help
Corbyn could be one casualty of all this, when all the smoke has cleared from the battlefield.
I think he'll muddle through, but maybe some of the lustre has worn off. His keeping schtum strategy, for the most part, has not been ineffective, letting people like Starmer fire up remainers and the like, but while I'd think he will get a boost among members once he switches to referendum or remain, since they want it so much they will not mind he has seemed reluctant to do so before now, maybe longer term that he had to be cajoled into it will stick in the minds of some.
Party discipline is entirely shot, how can anyone think of voting for a party whose MPs consistently squabble and insult each other in public.
Absolute rabble the lot of them.
I'm genuinely not sure which party you mean. It's Tories doing that more now, but it is not like we've not seen Labour do it just a few months ago too.
Labour's polling I get because the government is crap and they are the main opposition after all, the Tory numbers at times defy any explanation I can come up with. I don't even know what it would mean to say 'vote tory' right now, since who the hell knows what the local MP might think on Brexit, let alone anything else, but just on Brexit alone they might think their own leader is a traitor.
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
If these scenarios had been hugely positive for the Blessed Theresa's deal you would have made the same point, I'm sure.
Yeah right.
These scenarios are helpful for May in rolling over wavering Tory MPs from “No Deal”.
Problem is most are not wavering, they are against the deal. And they don't believe no deal will happen because they want to renegotiate. So how many MPs will such things flip, especially given they are not so naiive as to not have expected another project fear. 50? Still not enough. 70? Getting closer, but still need some Labour.
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
If these scenarios had been hugely positive for the Blessed Theresa's deal you would have made the same point, I'm sure.
Yeah right.
These scenarios are helpful for May in rolling over wavering Tory MPs from “No Deal”.
Problem is most are not wavering, they are against the deal. And they don't believe no deal will happen because they want to renegotiate. So how many MPs will such things flip, especially given they are not so naiive as to not have expected another project fear. 50? Still not enough. 70? Getting closer, but still need some Labour.
So they vote it down. May goes back to Brussels to negotiate. She gets little change because the EU can't give anything more away without causing major problems for themselves domestically. What happens then?
If May cannot convince her own party that it is a good deal, then why should other parties believe her?
It is just a wish list and nonsense
So why is it that she cannot convince her own party?
Why should other parties believe her?
Nothing TM could say or do would convince you. Labour are split and that is coming to a head for all to see shortly in the various votes
No, the deal is much as I suspected it would be, largely dictated by the EU.
It is the Tories that are split over it, other parties are much more united in their positions.
Not labour.
Are you really expecting Labour MPs to bail the Tory government out of its self inflicted debacle?
It would be nice if they could bail the country out of its self-inflicted debacle.
That would be nice. But no, we must expect them only to be thinking about how you must never even consider voting for a Tory proposal. It's the laziness that gets me. I'm glad actual MPs voting against the deal seem, for the most part, to at least claim it is about, you know, important things like the national interest and not simply because it a Tory proposed it.
The ' meaningful vote ' isn't legislation and in parliamentry terms quite an odd beast. What Labour's amendment is best seen as is a ' kill motion ' used to oppose the 2nd reading of a bill thus negating the whole thing. Or a fatal amendment used to block secondary legislation. As secondary legislation can't be amended passing an amendment blocks the whole thing. In either case the exact wording is secondary because passing it negates the legislation rather than amends it.
So while there would be moral weight to Labour's text if it passed it would be non binding. It's point is to negate the WA not cause any positive action. Hence the loose imprecise language can be used to attract rebels.
Thanks WG. I can't see how clauses beginning "Declines to approve..." are really amendments but maybe that is the nature of a MV?
In a local authority that would be called negating the motion and ruled out of order as an amendment; they would be advised simply to vote against the motion. In simply terms "yes, buts" are amendments but "no, buts" are not. Much of Labour wanted to move "yes, but a referendum" but of course not being able to agree this internally they have simply served up this trifle.
I always appreciate a man who knows his council’s standing orders.....
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
If these scenarios had been hugely positive for the Blessed Theresa's deal you would have made the same point, I'm sure.
Yeah right.
These scenarios are helpful for May in rolling over wavering Tory MPs from “No Deal”.
Problem is most are not wavering, they are against the deal. And they don't believe no deal will happen because they want to renegotiate. So how many MPs will such things flip, especially given they are not so naiive as to not have expected another project fear. 50? Still not enough. 70? Getting closer, but still need some Labour.
So they vote it down. May goes back to Brussels to negotiate. She gets little change because the EU can't give anything more away without causing major problems for themselves domestically. What happens then?
May won't go back anyway for starters, she's toast in 2 weeks. I think we will either remain or no deal at this point. I think tweaks might be possible but nothing substantive. And in such a situation I think people like Chuka get their wish and MPs, in exasperation, go to a referendum, with Labour backing remain and the Tories backing no deal (broadly at any rate - I expect plenty of Tories would back remain at that point, and some few Labour maybe no deal, but nowhere near as many).
Yes it would mean Labour would have to get off the fence, but that has to happen at some point.
If May cannot convince her own party that it is a good deal, then why should other parties believe her?
It is just a wish list and nonsense
So why is it that she cannot convince her own party?
Why should other parties believe her?
Nothing TM could say or do would convince you. Labour are split and that is coming to a head for all to see shortly in the various votes
No, the deal is much as I suspected it would be, largely dictated by the EU.
It is the Tories that are split over it, other parties are much more united in their positions.
Not labour.
Are you really expecting Labour MPs to bail the Tory government out of its self inflicted debacle?
Again, not expecting MPs to not care about the national interest in any way I see.
I believe most of those voting against the deal will believe they are acting in the national interest. But that you see a vote that avoids no deal entirely (at a cost which people are weighing carefully, and most appear to think is too much) purely in terms of 'bailing out' the Tory party is very telling. If they believed it to be in the national interest of course I would hope we would all expect Labour to bail out the government, even a Tory government. They don't see it that way, and that is defendable. Shooting it down just because it would be bailing out a Tory government? That would be despicable if that were the only reason.
The EU would agree an A50 extension of there was a HE or #peoplesvote. Either would be fine but the latter preferable. That is in the country's interest.
Thanks WG. I can't see how clauses beginning "Declines to approve..." are really amendments but maybe that is the nature of a MV?
In a local authority that would be called negating the motion and ruled out of order as an amendment; they would be advised simply to vote against the motion. In simply terms "yes, buts" are amendments but "no, buts" are not. Much of Labour wanted to move "yes, but a referendum" but of course not being able to agree this internally they have simply served up this trifle.
I always appreciate a man who knows his council’s standing orders.....
A creative or under pressure Monitoring Officer can find a way to advise acceptance of pretty much anything if they have to, though that is not always a good thing.
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
If these scenarios had been hugely positive for the Blessed Theresa's deal you would have made the same point, I'm sure.
Yeah right.
These scenarios are helpful for May in rolling over wavering Tory MPs from “No Deal”.
Yeah right.
No, they might be, there just are not many wavering Tory MPs to roll over - we can safely presume any waverers are among the undeclared, who are de facto assumed to be supporting the government motion anyway!
The ' meaningful vote ' isn't legislation and in parliamentry terms quite an odd beast. What Labour's amendment is best seen as is a ' kill motion ' used to oppose the 2nd reading of a bill thus negating the whole thing. Or a fatal amendment used to block secondary legislation. As secondary legislation can't be amended passing an amendment blocks the whole thing. In either case the exact wording is secondary because passing it negates the legislation rather than amends it.
So while there would be moral weight to Labour's text if it passed it would be non binding. It's point is to negate the WA not cause any positive action. Hence the loose imprecise language can be used to attract rebels.
I don't see the point. Why not just go the whole hog and stick a 2nd ref amendment in.
The EU would agree an A50 extension of there was a HE or #peoplesvote. Either would be fine but the latter preferable. That is in the country's interest.
And I have not said Labour MPs are not acting in the national interest. If they say they are I believe they believe that. But you are justifying what they are doing on the basis that they should not be expected to bail out a Tory government, which is entirely separate as an issue. While they can safely be expected to think it is usually the case that voting against the Tories is in the national interest, it is not always the case. Voting with a Tory led government on gay marriage was in the national interest. Every time Corbyn voted against his own party he probably thought it was the national interest even though he was lining up with Tories plenty of times. This might have been in the national interest, though clearly they think otherwise.
I can see clearly that no one else sees the distinction I aiming for on this, regrettably. But it really does seem key to me. If you lead on why someone is voting against with 'It's a Tory problem' or 'Oppositions oppose' or some such argument, you seem to me to be suggesting Labour MPs are thinking about partisan issues first, and justifying that second, ie they don;t perhaps really think it is in the national interest, they are just saying that after they oppose a Tory. Focusing on not bailing out their enemies rather than the actual merits, or not, of the deal, is what your focus on them opposing the Tories suggests to me. And I think that is very wrong. I happen to think most of them are probably better than that, even if I disagree with them. In your defence of them you make them seem worse.
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
Yeh, right. No offence, but what the hell did he expect?
Probably that some idiot like Mogg would misinterpret and make an arse of himself ?
Carney was interviewed on BBC radio, and was very clear indeed that these were worst case scenarios designed to stress test UK banks’ capacity to deal with a chaotic Brexit.
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
If these scenarios had been hugely positive for the Blessed Theresa's deal you would have made the same point, I'm sure.
Yeah right.
These scenarios are helpful for May in rolling over wavering Tory MPs from “No Deal”.
Problem is most are not wavering, they are against the deal. And they don't believe no deal will happen because they want to renegotiate. So how many MPs will such things flip, especially given they are not so naiive as to not have expected another project fear. 50? Still not enough. 70? Getting closer, but still need some Labour.
So they vote it down. May goes back to Brussels to negotiate. She gets little change because the EU can't give anything more away without causing major problems for themselves domestically. What happens then?
May won't go back anyway for starters, she's toast in 2 weeks. I think we will either remain or no deal at this point. I think tweaks might be possible but nothing substantive. And in such a situation I think people like Chuka get their wish and MPs, in exasperation, go to a referendum, with Labour backing remain and the Tories backing no deal (broadly at any rate - I expect plenty of Tories would back remain at that point, and some few Labour maybe no deal, but nowhere near as many).
Yes it would mean Labour would have to get off the fence, but that has to happen at some point.
Good night all.
I guess getting off the fence on No Deal vs Remain would be much more comfortable than getting off the fence on Unspecified Leave vs Remain, because they could still say they tried for Jobs First Unicorn Brexit, but were stopped by the evil, shambolic, unicorn-hating Tories.
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
Yeh, right. No offence, but what the hell did he expect?
Probably that some idiot like Mogg would misinterpret and make an arse of himself ?
Carney was interviewed on BBC radio, and was very clear indeed that these were worst case scenarios designed to stress test UK banks’ capacity to deal with a chaotic Brexit.
Not predictions.
As with the 30% dop in house prices. A scenario.
But scenarios aren't sexy for the media. Not when they can go full-on headless chicken.
To adapt the phrase Carney is making a necessity out of a virtue. These are stress test scenarios for Banks. They are by definition apocalyptic. His job is to do this.
He also knows how they'll be misreported and as a deep state institution the BoE has every motivation to try and stop No Deal. So Carney does his bit for policy stability by also doing his job which gives him complete plausible deniability. Which is why. Rees-Mogg is so angry with him.
Jacob Rees-Mogg may have tired of making the effort to put himself across as unrabid. Or he hasn't got the research support any more. Or something. Why else call Mark Carney a "second-tier Canadian politician who failed to get on in Canadian politics and then got a job in the UK"? Like him or loathe him, Carney has never worked as a politician. If you're going to scoff at someone, make extra sure you get your facts right. And what is JRM himself if he isn't second tier, at least for the time being?
Just been watching the BBC4 programmes about the Royal Cousins (George V, Nicholas II and Wilhelm II); the similarities between Wilhelm and Trump are striking.
I'll have to watch those.
I think they were repeats from a few years ago but they were really interesting - some fascinating very early footage.
They might still be on iPlayer, I'll take a look tomorrow.
Jacob Rees-Mogg may have tired of making the effort to put himself across as unrabid. Or he hasn't got the research support any more. Or something. Why else call Mark Carney a "second-tier Canadian politician who failed to get on in Canadian politics and then got a job in the UK"? Like him or loathe him, Carney has never worked as a politician. If you're going to scoff at someone, make extra sure you get your facts right. And what is JRM himself if he isn't second tier, at least for the time being?
An etiolated exquisite, whose time has been and gone.
I shall be interested to see what happened with Heathrow slots: the US was demanding 12 transatlantic slots for its airlines, which would be a major negative for (ah hem) those of us doing regular flights.
My guess is that the UK government leaned on BAA, and gave up 8-10. I sincerely hope it's no more.
All setting the stage for whatever TM intends to do if and when the deal option goes down.
Wow. That is some headline. Carney is a cautious banking type fellow. He has gone right out on a limb on this, if that is accurate.
It isn’t. The Bank were careful to stress that these were scenarios not forecasts to test bank stability in “very worst cases”
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
If these scenarios had been hugely positive for the Blessed Theresa's deal you would have made the same point, I'm sure.
Yeah right.
These scenarios are helpful for May in rolling over wavering Tory MPs from “No Deal”.
.
A second referendum would destroy the Conservative Party because Tory voters would rightly believe that their democracy had been rigged, where pro-EU votes get accepted while anti-EU votes get sabotaged. Whether May or a replacement, the UK will leave the EU. The question is whether that is behind her deal, amended or otherwise, or as a hard Brexit followed by a Corbyn hard left government in 4 years.
The former will be accepted by 80% of the British public as tolerable, a return to economic and political stability and political moderation. The latter would lead to our politics become more divisive, polarized and extremist than ever before and the long term mangling of our economy by a double hit.
Decent people of all stripes prefer the former. Ideologues who just want to "win" over their political enemies, no matter the harm to the country, prefer the latter.
Comments
Why should other parties believe her?
I say that as an on/off Labour supporter.
https://twitter.com/jrmaidment/status/1067911034940329984?s=21
Deary me
Anything else is an interesting tidbit to us anoraks but will soon be forgotten.
It is the Tories that are split over it, other parties are much more united in their positions.
However, I expect the mail is important reading for them in a very conservative area
The reporting of this has been atrocious.
I hope everyone has a good nights rest
Not long to the day of reckoning
Good night folks
Of course I am sure they believe the deal truly is bad. They also believe in substantial renegotiation fairies.
Anyway goodnight Big_G - I wish I shared your view that it will not be long to the day of recokoning - suspect we'll be having similar conversations for years to come!
Firstly, lets us address social media claims that the poll actually showed opposition to the deal and that the Mail has lied about it. This is untrue. What actually happened is that when the Daily Mail front page was published yesterday Survation has not yet put up the full tables, so people looking for the full results on Survation’s website stumbled upon their previous poll for the Daily Mail, which had shown people opposed the deal. Today’s poll is different – and that’s the point of the Mail’s splash – the poll suggests public opinion has changed.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/10040
More seriously, a split really would be a good thing. But that's a long wishes for dream among internet denizens, and parties find a way to avoid it at all costs. How they'll manage it if, somehow, the May deal passes I do not know - dozens of MPs will be facing having to support a government they just saw sell us into bondage or whatever the latest hyperbolic statement is. A crash out after a failed renegotiation seems less likely to have as significant an impact though, but not no impact.
Yeah right.
Absolute rabble the lot of them.
I believe most of those voting against the deal will believe they are acting in the national interest. But that you see a vote that avoids no deal entirely (at a cost which people are weighing carefully, and most appear to think is too much) purely in terms of 'bailing out' the Tory party is very telling. If they believed it to be in the national interest of course I would hope we would all expect Labour to bail out the government, even a Tory government. They don't see it that way, and that is defendable. Shooting it down just because it would be bailing out a Tory government? That would be despicable if that were the only reason.
Labour's polling I get because the government is crap and they are the main opposition after all, the Tory numbers at times defy any explanation I can come up with. I don't even know what it would mean to say 'vote tory' right now, since who the hell knows what the local MP might think on Brexit, let alone anything else, but just on Brexit alone they might think their own leader is a traitor.
So while there would be moral weight to Labour's text if it passed it would be non binding. It's point is to negate the WA not cause any positive action. Hence the loose imprecise language can be used to attract rebels.
Yes it would mean Labour would have to get off the fence, but that has to happen at some point.
Good night all.
I can see clearly that no one else sees the distinction I aiming for on this, regrettably. But it really does seem key to me. If you lead on why someone is voting against with 'It's a Tory problem' or 'Oppositions oppose' or some such argument, you seem to me to be suggesting Labour MPs are thinking about partisan issues first, and justifying that second, ie they don;t perhaps really think it is in the national interest, they are just saying that after they oppose a Tory. Focusing on not bailing out their enemies rather than the actual merits, or not, of the deal, is what your focus on them opposing the Tories suggests to me. And I think that is very wrong. I happen to think most of them are probably better than that, even if I disagree with them. In your defence of them you make them seem worse.
Carney was interviewed on BBC radio, and was very clear indeed that these were worst case scenarios designed to stress test UK banks’ capacity to deal with a chaotic Brexit.
Not predictions.
But scenarios aren't sexy for the media. Not when they can go full-on headless chicken.
He also knows how they'll be misreported and as a deep state institution the BoE has every motivation to try and stop No Deal. So Carney does his bit for policy stability by also doing his job which gives him complete plausible deniability. Which is why. Rees-Mogg is so angry with him.
About 200 years ago.
Bank warns of deep recession, house prices could fall by a third and governor is attacked over analysis"
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/all-brexit-options-would-hurt-uk-economy-9cvpnn32f
My guess is that the UK government leaned on BAA, and gave up 8-10. I sincerely hope it's no more.
The former will be accepted by 80% of the British public as tolerable, a return to economic and political stability and political moderation. The latter would lead to our politics become more divisive, polarized and extremist than ever before and the long term mangling of our economy by a double hit.
Decent people of all stripes prefer the former. Ideologues who just want to "win" over their political enemies, no matter the harm to the country, prefer the latter.