To give credit where it’s due, I think Prescott almost got it with his regional assemblies idea. The problem was he wasn’t radical enough (given that at that point New Labour had become drunk on centralised power). What he proposed was essentially another layer of local .
I moved South as it was too depressing living in the entitled north. People expect a living to be given to them, whereas in the South people tend to work hard for it. Both my wife and I could do our jobs in the North and be much better off, but I would prefer to raise my kids somewhere with a better attitude to work.
With regards to regions what is needed is a strategy not influenced by Civil Service who can’t see past London oxbridge triangle. I think some of what I am saying is reflected in the BBC move to Salford, and the development of Media in Manchester. The Government has other levers to move governmental departments to other parts of the country, but not in a piecemeal way but a strategic one - transport to south wales, science and engineering in Birmingham, enough to develop groups of supporting industries.
What a pompous stuck up fatuous pair of arseholes you and your wife are, the north is well shot of the pair of you , just unfortunate some poor blighters down south have to suffer you.
Sorry MalcolmG - I forgot no-one was allowed a different view to you. My wife is from the South and doesn’t share my views but I will pass on your contempt - she didn’t have to put up with the same people whinging when she was growing up.
You will come out with stupid statements denigrating 2/3 of the UK which are so obviously bollox. Loads of people in the north , as you put it, work their socks off for their families.
I am a Northerner (and I don’t count Scotland as the North - it’s Scotland) and I lived there for the first 25 years of my life. I’ve also lived in the Midlands. The thing is that incentives are different in the North. The accumulated property wealth is significantly less, and that affects decisions on careers, study etc. I believe Government has a better duty to decentralise and support regional economies, particularly in the North whose economies have been significantly affected by Globalisation. The industry is not coming back and proper plans need to be made - this will have to come from a centre left Party with sense, so I doubt it will happen for a long time.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
I
Welcome.
A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister *is* by definition a vote of no confidence in the government. It is telling the Queen to commission somebody else.
May leads the government. Hence if she goes so does the government. When HMQ appoints a prime minister, she appoints then to form a government in her name. The PM is the lynchpin in which the government lives or dies. No PM, no government.
A government minister is a different kettle of fish, that’s just rejecting one part of the government. So long as the PM survives, they have the power to reshape their government.
If May were to fall under a bus, there would still be government ministers in office. I can appreciate that Labour would not wish to vote for a motion which says we want May removed as PM but we've got confidence in the rest of the government, but a suitable wording could surely be thrashed out between them and the DUP. If the Speaker accepted a motion of NC in May as PM the fact that he didn't tell Jeremy Corbyn not to be such a silly sausage and that it's FTPA wording or nothing would make it a different motion, would set precedent.
If May fell under a bus, the government would technically fall under a bus too.
I'm not sure that's true. The PM forms the government, hires and fires ministers and chairs cabinet meetings (and other stuff), but the government would survive her absence until a new one is formed by a new PM. I should imagine it's not something you'd want to drag on, but the PM is not synonymous with HMG, she just puts it together.
Happy to be corrected on this if wrong.
When Eden became ill in late 1956 R A Butler became de facto Acting PM until Macmillan was appointed to form a new administration. Butler was again de facto Acting PM in October 1963 when Macmillan entered hospital and made known his intention to resign. On neither occasion,however, was Butler formally appointed PM.
In the first case he was appointed Acting Prime Minister by the incumbent (having also been acting PM in 1953 after Churchill's stroke while Eden had gallstones). He did not assume it on the request of the sovereign.
It is also worth pointing out that in the first case he was appointed to cover sick leave (from which Eden never returned) not a gap in the government, and in the second appears to have assumed it without instructions, with disastrous career-ending results.
You could mention Curzon acting as PM in Bonar Law's absence in 1923 as well.
Well Edmond, it appears that Charles himself agrees with me on this occasion. Not that I disagree with your general point. Many, probably most, people thankfully recognise the need to contribute to the society where they earn their living. Those that don't (Amazon comes to mind) are indeed parasites as someone suggested well down thread.
I don't mean it's offensive to Charles to make that connection, I mean it's offensive to citizens of everywhere, who have no connection with the tax-evading scumbags he's talking about, who (admittedly anecdotally) seem to be the biggest nationalistic tub-thumpers out there.
I think you are reading too much it to it.
I am explicitly refering to the tax evading scumbags
An expat, who pays their taxes in a different jurisdiction, is not one of those. They clearly retain links to there home country but are making a life elsewhere. That’s totally fine - it will mean they have 2 sets of loyalties not no loyalties.
He who is loyal to two countries is a traitor twice.
No - people can have multiple loyalties
It is only in a forced choice (say war) it becomes tricky
The point of allegance is that it's undivided. A man cannot serve two masters, an army serves one Crown. Loyalty to two is loyalty to none.
Yup, although only part of that is police stitching innocent people up with highly coercive interogation regime and deferent courts. The other part is that they don't like to bring cases unless they're really sure they'll get a conviction.
Article 248 of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure states: "Where prosecution is deemed unnecessary owing to the character, age, environment, gravity of the offense, circumstances or situation after the offense, prosecution need not be instituted." Hence, prosecutors in Japan have a very broad discretion and only prosecute if they are going to win
In a world of low inflation (and probably little changes to house prices) how do you accumulate capital except by paying off your borrowings. The housing ladder from 1970-90's was based on inflation reducing mortgages to nothing over 10-15years allowing you to move from a 2 bed to 3 bed as inflation (across both goods, assets and wages) reduced your initial mortgage to nothing. That hasn't been true for the past 15 years for either housing assets or wages across large parts of the country...
That's it. By paying off your borrowings.
So the time you can afford a 3 bedroom semi is after you've paid off most of your 25 year mortgage on the 2 bedroom terrace you first bought - so probably just before your children head to University.... As I stated before the old housing ladder that everyone imagined disappeared as inflation disappeared.
Not really. I bought my 1st house in 2012. I put 20% down on it, now own about 50% on it. I don't earn a vast amount - I just have deliberately bought cheap(I could have afforded a dearer house, but deliberately didn't buy one right on the edge of what I could afford) and lived fairly frugally, which has helped with overpayments. I'll currently be mortgage free aged about 45 - for the same monthly cost, if I extended my mortgage term for ten more years, I could now afford a really nice house. The current problem has far more to do with what other things people spend their money on than anything else (e.g. I drive a 10 year old car I gave £2k for 2 years and 50,000 miles ago - most of my piers drive almost new swanky cars they've got on finance). If you can't learn to save, then you'll never be able to afford housing.
I moved South as it was too depressing living in the entitled north. People expect a living to be given to them, whereas in the South people tend to work hard for it. Both my wife and I could do our jobs in the North and be much better off, but I would prefer to raise my kids somewhere with a better attitude to work.
What arrogance and tosh this is.
Call it arrogance if you want but It was my experience. I have lived on both sides of the Pennines. And in the people I know and met the attitude to work was completely different to that I have experienced and I see in the South. I come from a completely working class family, the family tree is an uninteresting mix of short lives in mining and agriculture. We had no accumulated wealth, and I was the first in my family to go to University. I stand by my assessment that Government departments need to be moved out of Landon strategically so that related industries can grow up around this.
I have lived in Scotland and many parts of southern England , including Little Gaddesden , Hemel Hempstead, Winchester, Chandler's Ford and Alresford. I have to say I found no difference other than accents , there was the same mix of good , bad , scroungers and grafters in all of them , except perhaps Little Gaddesden where they were all seriously loaded.
That’s great. I don’t doubt that that is your experience equally valid to my own. Perhaps we have different expectations because Winchester, Chandlers Ford and Alresford seemed pretty nice to me. Don’t know the other two apart from Hemel Hempstead amazing roundabout, almost as good as the magic roundabout in Swindon.
Article 248 of the Japanese Code of Criminal Procedure states: "Where prosecution is deemed unnecessary owing to the character, age, environment, gravity of the offense, circumstances or situation after the offense, prosecution need not be instituted." Hence, prosecutors in Japan have a very broad discretion and only prosecute if they are going to win
So I don't have any inside knowledge here but I've heard it explained like this: If the police collar you for some minor offense, they can keep you confined for several weeks. But the deal they'll offer you is that they'll let you go if you sign a confession. So you sign the confession and they file it away and let you go. But then if you get caught again, they still have the signed confession from last time, so if they prosecute this time, they can be sure they get a conviction...
Also iiuc they'll sometimes improvise some kind of restitution for the victim, which also means everything stays out of court.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
Hundreds of social media accounts linked to Russia have sought to amplify the street protests that have rocked France, according to analysis seen by The Times.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
Why obvious lies make great propaganda - The Firehose of Falsehood
In a world of low inflation (and probably little changes to house prices) how do you accumulate capital except by paying off your borrowings. The housing ladder from 1970-90's was based on inflation reducing mortgages to nothing over 10-15years allowing you to move from a 2 bed to 3 bed as inflation (across both goods, assets and wages) reduced your initial mortgage to nothing. That hasn't been true for the past 15 years for either housing assets or wages across large parts of the country...
That's it. By paying off your borrowings.
So the time you can afford a 3 bedroom semi is after you've paid off most of your 25 year mortgage on the 2 bedroom terrace you first bought - so probably just before your children head to University.... As I stated before the old housing ladder that everyone imagined disappeared as inflation disappeared.
Not really. I bought my 1st house in 2012. I put 20% down on it, now own about 50% on it. I don't earn a vast amount - I just have deliberately bought cheap(I could have afforded a dearer house, but deliberately didn't buy one right on the edge of what I could afford) and lived fairly frugally, which has helped with overpayments. I'll currently be mortgage free aged about 45 - for the same monthly cost, if I extended my mortgage term for ten more years, I could now afford a really nice house. The current problem has far more to do with what other things people spend their money on than anything else (e.g. I drive a 10 year old car I gave £2k for 2 years and 50,000 miles ago - most of my piers drive almost new swanky cars they've got on finance). If you can't learn to save, then you'll never be able to afford housing.
Yes if you want to help save for a deposit for a house cut out expensive meals out, 2 foreign holidays a year and replacing your car or phone every year or two
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
Still has more public money spent in it than anywhere else though - more than double the next two combined. It accounts for one-eighth of all public spending despite having less than one-tenth of the total population.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
In a world of low inflation (and probably little changes to house prices) how do you accumulate capital except by paying off your borrowings. The housing ladder from 1970-90's was based on inflation reducing mortgages to nothing over 10-15years allowing you to move from a 2 bed to 3 bed as inflation (across both goods, assets and wages) reduced your initial mortgage to nothing. That hasn't been true for the past 15 years for either housing assets or wages across large parts of the country...
That's it. By paying off your borrowings.
So the time you can afford a 3 bedroom semi is after you've paid off most of your 25 year mortgage on the 2 bedroom terrace you first bought - so probably just before your children head to University.... As I stated before the old housing ladder that everyone imagined disappeared as inflation disappeared.
Not really. I bought my 1st house in 2012. I put 20% down on it, now own about 50% on it. I don't earn a vast amount - I just have deliberately bought cheap(I could have afforded a dearer house, but deliberately didn't buy one right on the edge of what I could afford) and lived fairly frugally, which has helped with overpayments. I'll currently be mortgage free aged about 45 - for the same monthly cost, if I extended my mortgage term for ten more years, I could now afford a really nice house. The current problem has far more to do with what other things people spend their money on than anything else (e.g. I drive a 10 year old car I gave £2k for 2 years and 50,000 miles ago - most of my piers drive almost new swanky cars they've got on finance). If you can't learn to save, then you'll never be able to afford housing.
But the point there is that you could buy something within your budget, had a suitably sized deposit (20% deposit) and can afford to overpay the mortgage. I can safely say that that isn't the typical situation..
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
He only really appeals to the 30%, so you should be able to counter him by running a candidate who half the country doesn't already hate.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
He only really appeals to the 30%, so you should be able to counter him by running a candidate who half the country doesn't already hate.
This is why Clinton was such a foolish choice. And for that the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
He only really appeals to the 30%, so you should be able to counter him by running a candidate who half the country doesn't already hate.
This is why Clinton was such a foolish choice. And for that the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
He only really appeals to the 30%, so you should be able to counter him by running a candidate who half the country doesn't already hate.
This is why Clinton was such a foolish choice. And for that the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
At one point Clinton was the most popular politician in America iirc.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
He only really appeals to the 30%, so you should be able to counter him by running a candidate who half the country doesn't already hate.
This is why Clinton was such a foolish choice. And for that the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
At one point Clinton was the most popular politician in America iirc.
Long time ago.
There was a time in autumn 1997 when Blair had a 93% approval rating.
Yup, although only part of that is police stitching innocent people up with highly coercive interogation regime and deferent courts. The other part is that they don't like to bring cases unless they're really sure they'll get a conviction.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
Almost certainly not but if the ERG vote down the Deal at the moment Norway+ not No Deal looks the favourite alternative for MPs and the Cabinet
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
He only really appeals to the 30%, so you should be able to counter him by running a candidate who half the country doesn't already hate.
This is why Clinton was such a foolish choice. And for that the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
Yup, although I think they can also throw a bit of blame at Bernie Sanders who kept pretending he was still in the running even after he'd been mathematically eliminated and encouraged the theories about it being rigged against him.
Basically it was a Corbyn-Cameron-May-scale perfect storm of leadership atrociousness.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
He only really appeals to the 30%, so you should be able to counter him by running a candidate who half the country doesn't already hate.
This is why Clinton was such a foolish choice. And for that the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
Yup, although I think they can also throw a bit of blame at Bernie Sanders who kept pretending he was still in the running even after he'd been mathematically eliminated and encouraged the theories about it being rigged against him.
Basically it was a Corbyn-Cameron-May-scale perfect storm of leadership atrociousness.
Against a halfway decent candidate - say Evan Bayh - there would have been no Bern.
But in fact, one person who should also shoulder part of the blame is Obama. By having such an old cabinet around him, he didn't give rising talent like say Castro a proper national platform to launch a bid. Maybe he liked having the experience of Biden and Kelly to lean on (and Kerry was a good Secretary of State) but it left the party bereft of leaders in middle age with meaningful experience who could have eviscerated Trump.
Edit - that said, again, the cravenness of the Democratic governors in just leaving it open for Clinton instead of putting up a fight was not his fault, but was definitely a factor.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
Almost certainly not but if the ERG vote down the Deal at the moment Norway+ not No Deal looks the favourite alternative for MPs and the Cabinet
Good luck to future Tory GE candidates trying to explain on the doorstep how they ended up locked forever into Norway+. With full CU and SM - a 180 degree turn from the last Manifesto commitment. And no Article 50 option to leave it.....
At least Norway + cheerleader Amber Rudd will be out of Parliament.
Can anyone give a very brief summary of what exactly Norway+ is?
Is it more or less in the EU than May's deal?
Much more, would involve free movement and at least de facto single market membership, probably also CAP. I think it includes CJEU jurisdiction as well.
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
Still has more public money spent in it than anywhere else though - more than double the next two combined. It accounts for one-eighth of all public spending despite having less than one-tenth of the total population.
Can anyone give a very brief summary of what exactly Norway+ is?
Is it more or less in the EU than May's deal?
Much more, would involve free movement and at least de facto single market membership, probably also CAP.
So the response to May's deal failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break from the EU is to....be almost completely in the EU.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
He only really appeals to the 30%, so you should be able to counter him by running a candidate who half the country doesn't already hate.
This is why Clinton was such a foolish choice. And for that the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
Yup, although I think they can also throw a bit of blame at Bernie Sanders who kept pretending he was still in the running even after he'd been mathematically eliminated and encouraged the theories about it being rigged against him.
Basically it was a Corbyn-Cameron-May-scale perfect storm of leadership atrociousness.
Against a halfway decent candidate - say Evan Bayh - there would have been no Bern.
But in fact, one person who should also shoulder part of the blame is Obama. By having such an old cabinet around him, he didn't give rising talent like say Castro a proper national platform to launch a bid. Maybe he liked having the experience of Biden and Kelly to lean on (and Kerry was a good Secretary of State) but it left the party bereft of leaders in middle age with meaningful experience who could have eviscerated Trump.
TBF Biden would have been a great candidate against Trump - if his son hadn't died it could all have been quite different.
Hillary had a lot of money and insider control that would have been hard for talented young candidate to beat. I mean, Obama only just beat her, and he was a superb candidate.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
Almost certainly not but if the ERG vote down the Deal at the moment Norway+ not No Deal looks the favourite alternative for MPs and the Cabinet
Good luck to future Tory GE candidates trying to explain on the doorstep how they ended up locked forever into Norway+. With full CU and SM - a 180 degree turn from the last Manifesto commitment. And no Article 50 option to leave it.....
At least Norway + cheerleader Amber Rudd will be out of Parliament.
It is still better than going into the next general election with No Deal albeit worse than the Deal and in any case I would expect just as many Labour MPs to back Norway+ as Tory MPs and all LD and SNP MPs. The ERG would oppose it still but even the DUP could back it as it applies CU and SM to the whole UK
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
Almost certainly not but if the ERG vote down the Deal at the moment Norway+ not No Deal looks the favourite alternative for MPs and the Cabinet
Good luck to future Tory GE candidates trying to explain on the doorstep how they ended up locked forever into Norway+. With full CU and SM - a 180 degree turn from the last Manifesto commitment. And no Article 50 option to leave it.....
At least Norway + cheerleader Amber Rudd will be out of Parliament.
It is still better thsn going into the next general election with No Deal and in any case I would expect just as many Labour MPs to back Norway+ as Tory MPs and all LD and SNP MPs. The ERG would oppose it still but even the Deal could back it as it applies CU and SM to the whole UK
Right now the ERG would oppose a solution that gave us perfect weather every day.
Can anyone give a very brief summary of what exactly Norway+ is?
Is it more or less in the EU than May's deal?
Much more, would involve free movement and at least de facto single market membership, probably also CAP.
So the response to May's deal failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break from the EU is to....be almost completely in the EU.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
Almost certainly not but if the ERG vote down the Deal at the moment Norway+ not No Deal looks the favourite alternative for MPs and the Cabinet
Good luck to future Tory GE candidates trying to explain on the doorstep how they ended up locked forever into Norway+. With full CU and SM - a 180 degree turn from the last Manifesto commitment. And no Article 50 option to leave it.....
At least Norway + cheerleader Amber Rudd will be out of Parliament.
It is still better thsn going into the next general election with No Deal and in any case I would expect just as many Labour MPs to back Norway+ as Tory MPs and all LD and SNP MPs. The ERG would oppose it still but even the Deal could back it as it applies CU and SM to the whole UK
And it will kill the Tory Party. Rightly, as they will have blatantly lied to the voters on the biggest issue for decades.
I see Andra Neil is live tweeting the French riots with unseemly relish. Of course his live tweeting involves sitting on his lardy arse and watching (no doubt multiple) tv screens.
Trump seems to have noticed something no-one else has about the riots.
I usually object to that kind of assessment, but Trump really defies any logic I am able to grasp. Of course, that also means I'm baffled how one counters such a figure given he is clearly successful doing what he does.
He only really appeals to the 30%, so you should be able to counter him by running a candidate who half the country doesn't already hate.
This is why Clinton was such a foolish choice. And for that the Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves.
Yup, although I think they can also throw a bit of blame at Bernie Sanders who kept pretending he was still in the running even after he'd been mathematically eliminated and encouraged the theories about it being rigged against him.
Basically it was a Corbyn-Cameron-May-scale perfect storm of leadership atrociousness.
Against a halfway decent candidate - say Evan Bayh - there would have been no Bern.
But in fact, one person who should also shoulder part of the blame is Obama. By having such an old cabinet around him, he didn't give rising talent like say Castro a proper national platform to launch a bid. Maybe he liked having the experience of Biden and Kelly to lean on (and Kerry was a good Secretary of State) but it left the party bereft of leaders in middle age with meaningful experience who could have eviscerated Trump.
TBF Biden would have been a great candidate against Trump - if his son hadn't died it could all have been quite different.
Hillary had a lot of money and insider control that would have been hard for talented young candidate to beat. I mean, Obama only just beat her, and he was a superb candidate.
Even if his son hadn't died, I don't think he would have beaten Clinton. He was too old.
But her whole pitch was essentially 'it's my turn and there's nobody else, so pick me.' A 50 year old instead of a 70 year old Secretary of State willing to stand and the equation might have been different - she might not even have run.
Can anyone give a very brief summary of what exactly Norway+ is?
Is it more or less in the EU than May's deal?
Much more, would involve free movement and at least de facto single market membership, probably also CAP.
So the response to May's deal failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break from the EU is to....be almost completely in the EU.
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
Depends how you measure it of course. Transport for London alone has an annual budget equivalent to that of ten English county councils. London receives one third of the annual sum paid out in housing benefit. The working age benefits bill in some London boroughs approaches £2bn a year. London boroughs have the highest level of funding/spending per head of any English local authorities - particularly in inner London. Oligarchs living in one Hyde Park probably have the best street cleaning and refuse collection services in the UK - and pay the lowest council tax.
Lots of 'hidden' public subsidies to a City which is now increasingly polarised between the often smug well off and the very poor and the young in their 20s who often leave given the extortionate cost of housing.
London is of course the driver of the UK economy - but that is partly driven by the level of investment it gets in transport and other sectors. Money is no object when it comes to investing in London's infrastructure.
And this disparity is arguably one of the factors why London was the only English region to vote remain.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
Almost certainly not but if the ERG vote down the Deal at the moment Norway+ not No Deal looks the favourite alternative for MPs and the Cabinet
Good luck to future Tory GE candidates trying to explain on the doorstep how they ended up locked forever into Norway+. With full CU and SM - a 180 degree turn from the last Manifesto commitment. And no Article 50 option to leave it.....
At least Norway + cheerleader Amber Rudd will be out of Parliament.
It is still better thsn going into the next general election with No Deal and in any case I would expect just as many Labour MPs to back Norway+ as Tory MPs and all LD and SNP MPs. The ERG would oppose it still but even the Deal could back it as it applies CU and SM to the whole UK
And it will kill the Tory Party. Rightly, as they will have blatantly lied to the voters on the biggest issue for decades.
Nope. Tory voters back the Deal 41% to 39% for No Deal with Yougov with 19% for Remain.
Yougov only has UKIP voters backing No Deal by a majority
Can anyone give a very brief summary of what exactly Norway+ is?
Is it more or less in the EU than May's deal?
Much more, would involve free movement and at least de facto single market membership, probably also CAP.
So the response to May's deal failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break from the EU is to....be almost completely in the EU.
That doesn't make any sense.
Would serve the ERG right though, poetic justice
It's not about "poetic justice" for the ERG.
It's about honouring the referendum result to leave which was voted on by 17 million people. Not to mention both main parties pledging to leave the EU in their manifestos.
This isn't some silly game to get back at certain MPs who aren't doing what you want.
Sensible comment (well I think so anyway) from Emily Thornberry in the Guardian Weekend, when asked about Brexit.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
Sensible comment (well I think so anyway) from Emily Thornberry in the Guardian Weekend, when asked about Brexit.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
It's nonsense. If it was 52/48 to remain then she wouldn't be talking about compromise and how we can't fully stay in the EU. It would be we're staying and that's the end of it.
Don't these people realise how hypocritical they look?
Adding to the complexity twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1071338643892129792
Which is why I suspect that an Executive decision just to cancel Brexit on the basis that the Govt tried and failed. It stops the electorate from being bothered (since the apparently do not like the idea - see tweet above) and Corbyn should let his MPs "rebel" so he can remain ideologically pure There is going to be a row no matter what happens. It might as well be one with a predictable and controllable outcome.
A very neat and clean solution, Mrs C. And then all the miserable Brexiteers can go away and decide among themselves what it is they would really like to see. Then perhaps we could have another referendum, in perhaps 50 years time, and come to a real decision based on facts, without foreigners taking part and deciding everything for us. And meanwhile, the Conservative Party could have its own internal election, and tear chunks out of one another. Result - everybody happy.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
Almost certainly not but if the ERG vote down the Deal at the moment Norway+ not No Deal looks the favourite alternative for MPs and the Cabinet
Good luck to future Tory GE candidates trying to explain on the doorstep how they ended up locked forever into Norway+. With full CU and SM - a 180 degree turn from the last Manifesto commitment. And no Article 50 option to leave it.....
At least Norway + cheerleader Amber Rudd will be out of Parliament.
It is still better thsn going into the next general election with No Deal and in any case I would expect just as many Labour MPs to back Norway+ as Tory MPs and all LD and SNP MPs. The ERG would oppose it still but even the Deal could back it as it applies CU and SM to the whole UK
And it will kill the Tory Party. Rightly, as they will have blatantly lied to the voters on the biggest issue for decades.
Nope. Tory voters back the Deal 41% to 39% for No Deal with Yougov with 19% for Remain.
Yougov only has UKIP voters backing No Deal by a majority
There's no meaningful polling on Norway +, cuz nobody has a clue what it means. Once you explain "basically, as you were but far less input for the same money...." expect it to get a resounding raspberry.
We should be pursuing the renegotiation that Prodi admits the EU would want once May's deal is killed off by the House of Commons. They could tweak the backstop, or admit no agreement will pass and put measures in place. Call it No Deal +, where we haven't locked ourselves into the terms of the Trade Deal in advance, but put in place pragmatic arrangments to keep trade flowing between the EU and the UK.
Sensible comment (well I think so anyway) from Emily Thornberry in the Guardian Weekend, when asked about Brexit.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
The problem is that the 52% have a right to say, "If you'd told us we were only going to leave a little bit, we wouldn't have bothered."
Sensible comment (well I think so anyway) from Emily Thornberry in the Guardian Weekend, when asked about Brexit.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
Well yes, that is about right. Something soft which also makes rejoining a bit easier though something few will love (for different reasons) was probably merited based on the result. But it was attempted from the start, and she should have a word with 90% of her colleagues who are working toward remain some what may, along with those Tories also doing so (and the ERG unintentionally leading to that outcome).
Adding to the complexity twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1071338643892129792
Which is why I suspect that an Executive decision just to cancel Brexit on the basis that the Govt tried and failed. It stops the electorate from being bothered (since the apparently do not like the idea - see tweet above) and Corbyn should let his MPs "rebel" so he can remain ideologically pure There is going to be a row no matter what happens. It might as well be one with a predictable and controllable outcome.
A very neat and clean solution, Mrs C. And then all the miserable Brexiteers can go away and decide among themselves what it is they would really like to see. Then perhaps we could have another referendum, in perhaps 50 years time, and come to a real decision based on facts, without foreigners taking part and deciding everything for us. And meanwhile, the Conservative Party could have its own internal election, and tear chunks out of one another. Result - everybody happy.
The Remainiac delusions really are a sight to behold.
Adding to the complexity twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1071338643892129792
Which is why I suspect that an Executive decision just to cancel Brexit on the basis that the Govt tried and failed. It stops the electorate from being bothered (since the apparently do not like the idea - see tweet above) and Corbyn should let his MPs "rebel" so he can remain ideologically pure There is going to be a row no matter what happens. It might as well be one with a predictable and controllable outcome.
A very neat and clean solution, Mrs C. And then all the miserable Brexiteers can go away and decide among themselves what it is they would really like to see. Then perhaps we could have another referendum, in perhaps 50 years time, and come to a real decision based on facts, without foreigners taking part and deciding everything for us. And meanwhile, the Conservative Party could have its own internal election, and tear chunks out of one another. Result - everybody happy.
Neat, clean and totally the wrong way to go about it. If you want it reversed, there has to be a second referendum (fuck that people's vote bollocks), then we can go from there.
Sensible comment (well I think so anyway) from Emily Thornberry in the Guardian Weekend, when asked about Brexit.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
It's nonsense. If it was 52/48 to remain then she wouldn't be talking about compromise and how we can't fully stay in the EU. It would be we're staying and that's the end of it.
Don't these people realise how hypocritical they look?
That wasn't the question. For myself I would look to bringing in the same immigration requirments as, perhaps, Belgium
Sensible comment (well I think so anyway) from Emily Thornberry in the Guardian Weekend, when asked about Brexit.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
It's nonsense. If it was 52/48 to remain then she wouldn't be talking about compromise and how we can't fully stay in the EU. It would be we're staying and that's the end of it.
Don't these people realise how hypocritical they look?
Interestingly, Portillo was originally against holding a referendum, because he thought that if Remain won, then that would be the whistle to start much fuller integration and possibly even joining the Euro.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
Almost certainly not but if the ERG vote down the Deal at the moment Norway+ not No Deal looks the favourite alternative for MPs and the Cabinet
Good luck to future Tory GE candidates trying to explain on the doorstep how they ended up locked forever into Norway+. With full CU and SM - a 180 degree turn from the last Manifesto commitment. And no Article 50 option to leave it.....
At least Norway + cheerleader Amber Rudd will be out of Parliament.
I don't know about exit from the Customs Union bit, but exit from the EEA is under Article 127 of the EEA Agreement, requiring twelve months notice by the leaving party.
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
Still has more public money spent in it than anywhere else though - more than double the next two combined. It accounts for one-eighth of all public spending despite having less than one-tenth of the total population.
Of course. You run your profits.
It still massively subsidises everywhere else.
The role of government is to do the best for the whole country. The proportionate size of London’s public sector is an irrelevant measure but it’s total size is part of the problem. London sucks in talent and opportunity from the whole country, perhaps from a Europe too. This has positives and negatives for the whole country including house price inflation etc . One thing the Government can control is where it locates key state functions, and as they are mostly in London, then the associated legal, and professional support is also in London, and the relevant associated companies will also have a presence. It is in the Governments power to restructure itself to better support the whole country, however if you are an ambitious civil servant you don’t wont to get shipped off to the ministry of agriculature in Belfast, or the ministry of education in Newcastle. You want to be in London. So there it is - the structure of Governement is to suit the ambition and ease of the civil service.
Can anyone give a very brief summary of what exactly Norway+ is?
Is it more or less in the EU than May's deal?
Much more, would involve free movement and at least de facto single market membership, probably also CAP.
So the response to May's deal failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break from the EU is to....be almost completely in the EU.
That doesn't make any sense.
It does to MPs. The deal being insufficiently leavery is causing it to be voted down by the ERG and the handful of labour leavers, but given parliament as a whole would prefer to remain if it could, they are more likely to approve a version of leave which is far far softer. It would upset the ERG and more besides, but they can be outnumbered if something most Tories and most Labour figures can accept crops up.
The committed leavers in parliament are not going to get any hard leave through the house, and have to rely on extended chaos preventing any other option, which not all agree with since only some of them want no deal at all. So this may be as hard a leave as is on offer. It's that, Brexit in name only, or no brexit at all, take your pick.
Because the deal is not really failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break. Yes, many dozens are opposed on that basis, but even if nearly all the ERG voted for the deal it would still fail if the DUP and every other party was opposed. The deal is failing both because the leavers don't like it enough, and barely anyone else, particularly in Labour, will back it.
Therefore any deal needs to secure some level of support from Labour or the others. The only way that will happen is if it is softer than May's deal, so any Brexit deal we get must be softer.
The biggest opportunity the ERG have of Brexit occurring at all is Labour and Tory remainers trying for remain too much and failing.
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Sounds like the same problem the EU as a whole has. Problem arises, make noises about accepting that, complaints die down a bit, moan about giving in to populism and continue on merry way.
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
According to Rudd this morning much of the Cabinet will switch to Norway+ ie single market and customs union if the Deal does not get through the Commons to avoid No Deal. Assuming May does not call EUref2 too of course which I would not completely rule out
Did we ever get to the bottom of whether the UK could unilaterally terminate Norway+ in the future?
Almost certainly not but if the ERG vote down the Deal at the moment Norway+ not No Deal looks the favourite alternative for MPs and the Cabinet
Good luck to future Tory GE candidates trying to explain on the doorstep how they ended up locked forever into Norway+. With full CU and SM - a 180 degree turn from the last Manifesto commitment. And no Article 50 option to leave it.....
At least Norway + cheerleader Amber Rudd will be out of Parliament.
I don't know about exit from the Customs Union bit, but exit from the EEA is under Article 127 of the EEA Agreement, requiring twelve months notice by the leaving party.
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Can anyone give a very brief summary of what exactly Norway+ is?
Is it more or less in the EU than May's deal?
Much more, would involve free movement and at least de facto single market membership, probably also CAP.
So the response to May's deal failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break from the EU is to....be almost completely in the EU.
That doesn't make any sense.
It does to MPs. The deal being insufficiently leavery is causing it to be voted down by the ERG and the handful of labour leavers, but given parliament as a whole would prefer to remain if it could, they are more likely to approve a version of leave which is far far softer. It would upset the ERG and more besides, but they can be outnumbered if something most Tories and most Labour figures can accept crops up.
The committed leavers in parliament are not going to get any hard leave through the house, and have to rely on extended chaos preventing any other option, which not all agree with since only some of them want no deal at all. So this may be as hard a leave as is on offer. It's that, Brexit in name only, or no brexit at all, take your pick.
Because the deal is not really failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break. Yes, many dozens are opposed on that basis, but even if nearly all the ERG voted for the deal it would still fail if the DUP and every other party was opposed. The deal is failing both because the leavers don't like it enough, and barely anyone else, particularly in Labour, will back it.
Therefore any deal needs to secure some level of support from Labour or the others. The only way that will happen is if it is softer than May's deal, so any Brexit deal we get must be softer.
The biggest opportunity the ERG have of Brexit occurring at all is Labour and Tory remainers trying for remain too much and failing.
But to what extent do we think that Labour MPs are voting no based on wanting a better deal Vs party political reasons? It may be that many of them will never vote for any deal presented by the Tories
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Simultaneously berating "cocky Remainers" whilst writing "the weeks after we vote to stop Brexit" suggests something of a self-awareness problem.
Read his other posts. Femi is just addressing the possibility of Remain winning a #Peoplesvote, something that is at least possible.
Norway+ sounds a good outcome to me, very easy to Rejoin from that position. Presumably just requires a new political declaration, as the WA would be unchanged, being effectively Norway+ until Dec 2020.
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
I
Welcome.
A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister *is* by definition a vote of no confidence in the government. It is telling the Queen to commission somebody else.
May leads the government. Hence if she goes so does the government. When HMQ appoints a prime minister, she appoints then to form a government in her name. The PM is the lynchpin in which the government lives or dies. No PM, no government.
A government minister is a different kettle of fish, that’s just rejecting one part of the government. So long as the PM survives, they have the power to reshape their government.
If May fell under a bus, the government would technically fall under a bus too.
I'm not sure that's true. The PM forms the government, hires and fires ministers and chairs cabinet meetings (and other stuff), but the government would survive her absence until a new one is formed by a new PM. I should imagine it's not something you'd want to drag on, but the PM is not synonymous with HMG, she just puts it together.
Happy to be corrected on this if wrong.
When Eden became ill in late 1956 R A Butler became de facto Acting PM until Macmillan was appointed to form a new administration. Butler was again de facto Acting PM in October 1963 when Macmillan entered hospital and made known his intention to resign. On neither occasion,however, was Butler formally appointed PM.
In the first case he was appointed Acting Prime Minister by the incumbent (having also been acting PM in 1953 after Churchill's stroke while Eden had gallstones). He did not assume it on the request of the sovereign.
It is also worth pointing out that in the first case he was appointed to cover sick leave (from which Eden never returned) not a gap in the government, and in the second appears to have assumed it without instructions, with disastrous career-ending results.
You could mention Curzon acting as PM in Bonar Law's absence in 1923 as well.
I have also seen it suggested that in the aftermath of Churchill's stroke in 1953 that his son-in-law - Christopher Soames - was effectively running the country!
Sensible comment (well I think so anyway) from Emily Thornberry in the Guardian Weekend, when asked about Brexit.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
It's nonsense. If it was 52/48 to remain then she wouldn't be talking about compromise and how we can't fully stay in the EU. It would be we're staying and that's the end of it.
Don't these people realise how hypocritical they look?
Although I don't like Emily Thornberry, I don't think that's fair. Any sensible politician winning a referendum by less than 5% would take it as a shot across the bows. For a start it would have killed any talk of further integration via treaty changes stone dead. It would also probably have seen a fight over the budget and the rebate.
Arguably the folly of leavers in not reaching out is the reason why they're now panicking about a second referendum. I'm panicking because Remainers haven't tried either but are increasingly convinced they'd win because er...
Sensible comment (well I think so anyway) from Emily Thornberry in the Guardian Weekend, when asked about Brexit.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
The problem is that the 52% have a right to say, "If you'd told us we were only going to leave a little bit, we wouldn't have bothered."
In which case they will be slight annoyed but not at riot levels of anger were we to just call it a bad job and remain...
And I suspect that is the important thing here, what other things could we have lined up to help / solve Austerity Leaverstan as A50 is revoked as a impossible task...
The key other issue with the Norway options of course is that we retain freedom of movement - albeit without Norway's immigration controls infrastructure, very high cost of living and less generous non contributory welfare system which asks as a break on migrants who require state subsidies (e.g. tax credit and HB) to top up their wages to survive as you need to have lived in and paid for some time to claim welfare or housing subsidies in almost all cases. In order to stay permanently as an EU national in Norway you need a job - albeit with a grace period or means to pay your way as a retiree - and must register with the police.
In other words Norway has freedom of movement - but manages it so it isn't a beacon for the unemployed, unskilled or low paid who won't pay their way. Unlike the UK which is a free for all as one might say.
I don't see Norway doing the Tories electoral prospects much good if FOM stays without Norway's welfare systems and controls and barriers.
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
The last thing I would want is top remainers thinking they have carte blanche to interpret what leavers want and using this as justification for cherrypicking from anything some leavers may have mentioned. After all top remainers are implacably opposed to the one thing which unites leavers, leaving the EU. If leavers were united in rejecting the system, then why did so many vote for the incumbent party at the last election?
Can anyone give a very brief summary of what exactly Norway+ is?
Is it more or less in the EU than May's deal?
Much more, would involve free movement and at least de facto single market membership, probably also CAP.
So the response to May's deal failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break from the EU is to....be almost completely in the EU.
That doesn't make any sense.
It does Because the deal is not really failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break. Yes, many dozens are opposed on that basis, but even if nearly all the ERG voted for the deal it would still fail if the DUP and every other party was opposed. The deal is failing both because the leavers don't like it enough, and barely anyone else, particularly in Labour, will back it.
Therefore any deal needs to secure some level of support from Labour or the others. The only way that will happen is if it is softer than May's deal, so any Brexit deal we get must be softer.
The biggest opportunity the ERG have of Brexit occurring at all is Labour and Tory remainers trying for remain too much and failing.
But to what extent do we think that Labour MPs are voting no based on wanting a better deal Vs party political reasons? It may be that many of them will never vote for any deal presented by the Tories
Could be, which is why the risk of accidental no deal is still there, if not as high as it was now that (pending Monday's ruling) remain is back on the table. If we can actually renegotiate a bit, and if we do so successfully, and if that gets most of the Tories on board, are there enough Labour MPs willing to see it over the line even if they would prefer a Labour gov and Labour negotiation, recognising they cannot get those things?
I suspect we shall never know. Since most Labour MPs want to remain, it seems more likely if offered a referendum for that vs the deal as it stands, they would decide there is less need to renegotiate after all (or reluctantly state there is no time left). Getting enough Tories on board for that is trickier.
Theresa May will probably fall this year and here is why.
I
Welcome.
A vote of no confidence in the Prime Minister *is* by definition a vote of no confidence in the government. It is telling the Queen to commission somebody else.
May leads the government. Hence if she goes so does the government. When HMQ appoints a prime minister, she appoints then to form a government in her name. The PM is the lynchpin in which the government lives or dies. No PM, no government.
A government minister is a different kettle of fish, that’s just rejecting one part of the government. So long as the PM survives, they have the power to reshape their government.
If May fell under a bus, the government would technically fall under a bus too.
I'm not sure that's true. The PM forms the government, hires and fires ministers and chairs cabinet meetings (and other stuff), but the government would survive her absence until a new one is formed by a new PM. I should imagine it's not something you'd want to drag on, but the PM is not synonymous with HMG, she just puts it together.
Happy to be corrected on this if wrong.
When Eden became ill in late 1956 R A Butler became de facto Acting PM until Macmillan was appointed to form a new administration. Butler was again de facto Acting PM in October 1963 when Macmillan entered hospital and made known his intention to resign. On neither occasion,however, was Butler formally appointed PM.
In the first case he was appointed Acting Prime Minister by the incumbent (having also been acting PM in 1953 after Churchill's stroke while Eden had gallstones). He did not assume it on the request of the sovereign.
It is also worth pointing out that in the first case he was appointed to cover sick leave (from which Eden never returned) not a gap in the government, and in the second appears to have assumed it without instructions, with disastrous career-ending results.
You could mention Curzon acting as PM in Bonar Law's absence in 1923 as well.
I have also seen it suggested that in the aftermath of Churchill's stroke in 1953 that his son-in-law - Christopher Soames - was effectively running the country!
I think that a little unlikely.
But there's no doubt that in 1919-21 Edith Wilson was de facto President of the United States.
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Sensible comment (well I think so anyway) from Emily Thornberry in the Guardian Weekend, when asked about Brexit.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
It's nonsense. If it was 52/48 to remain then she wouldn't be talking about compromise and how we can't fully stay in the EU. It would be we're staying and that's the end of it.
Don't these people realise how hypocritical they look?
Although I don't like Emily Thornberry, I don't think that's fair. Any sensible politician winning a referendum by less than 5% would take it as a shot across the bows. For a start it would have killed any talk of further integration via treaty changes stone dead. It would also probably have seen a fight over the budget and the rebate.
Arguably the folly of leavers in not reaching out is the reason why they're now panicking about a second referendum. I'm panicking because Remainers haven't tried either but are increasingly convinced they'd win because er...
Certainly we needed a PM who would a) carry through on their promise to address the concerns of those who are struggling, and b) recognise that both the reality of our situation and the closeness of the vote always directed towards a very soft Brexit, at least initially, as even SeanT recognised in one of his rare lucid moments, and, c) recognising that they had some irreconcilable idiots in their own party, Brexit always needed to be resolved on a cross-party basis.
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Who can claim that believably? The current Labour leadership are the only ones who actually want any kind of significant change, and it remains to be seen if they can convince the public that it's the right change
Has anyone yet pointed out that London has by some way proportionately the smallest public sector of any region? I thought not.
That, perhaps, is a large part of the problem. Much of Leaverstan is heavily dependent on public sector jobs, so relatively hard hit by austerity. That squeeze on regional wages at a time of sluggish regional investment, while most of English Remania prospered fueled the sense of grievance.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
Comments
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
It is also worth pointing out that in the first case he was appointed to cover sick leave (from which Eden never returned) not a gap in the government, and in the second appears to have assumed it without instructions, with disastrous career-ending results.
You could mention Curzon acting as PM in Bonar Law's absence in 1923 as well.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Nissan-s-Ghosn-crisis/Ghosn-faces-Japan-s-99-conviction-rate-if-charged
59% of it's festive output is not original and instead re-runs of classic sitcoms. On BBC2, 73% of the Christmas schedule seen before.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6474263/BBC-boss-sparks-outrage-claiming-viewers-love-repeats-Christmas.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/08/eu-will-negotiate-after-may-loses-commons-brexit-vote-says-prodi
Rogue apostrophe!!!!!
I'll currently be mortgage free aged about 45 - for the same monthly cost, if I extended my mortgage term for ten more years, I could now afford a really nice house.
The current problem has far more to do with what other things people spend their money on than anything else (e.g. I drive a 10 year old car I gave £2k for 2 years and 50,000 miles ago - most of my piers drive almost new swanky cars they've got on finance). If you can't learn to save, then you'll never be able to afford housing.
Also iiuc they'll sometimes improvise some kind of restitution for the victim, which also means everything stays out of court.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/08/eu-will-negotiate-after-may-loses-commons-brexit-vote-says-prodi
I interpret that as meaning that they'll negotiate to keep trade flowing rather than pure no-deal, and also consider some tweaks if they think it will produce a positive result. They won't want to bother with the latter if they think the revised deal would be voted down anyway.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-accounts-fuel-protesters-outrage-online-xx2f2g8th
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nknYtlOvaQ0
Six would be excessive.
Need to send a forceful message to Brussels with Tuesday's vote. But will that forceful message shoot May the messenger?
There was a time in autumn 1997 when Blair had a 93% approval rating.
And in some contexts appears rather disturbing:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/does-japan-ever-convict-men-for-rape
Basically it was a Corbyn-Cameron-May-scale perfect storm of leadership atrociousness.
Is it more or less in the EU than May's deal?
But in fact, one person who should also shoulder part of the blame is Obama. By having such an old cabinet around him, he didn't give rising talent like say Castro a proper national platform to launch a bid. Maybe he liked having the experience of Biden and Kelly to lean on (and Kerry was a good Secretary of State) but it left the party bereft of leaders in middle age with meaningful experience who could have eviscerated Trump.
Edit - that said, again, the cravenness of the Democratic governors in just leaving it open for Clinton instead of putting up a fight was not his fault, but was definitely a factor.
At least Norway + cheerleader Amber Rudd will be out of Parliament.
It still massively subsidises everywhere else.
That doesn't make any sense.
Hillary had a lot of money and insider control that would have been hard for talented young candidate to beat. I mean, Obama only just beat her, and he was a superb candidate.
But her whole pitch was essentially 'it's my turn and there's nobody else, so pick me.' A 50 year old instead of a 70 year old Secretary of State willing to stand and the equation might have been different - she might not even have run.
Lots of 'hidden' public subsidies to a City which is now increasingly polarised between the often smug well off and the very poor and the young in their 20s who often leave given the extortionate cost of housing.
London is of course the driver of the UK economy - but that is partly driven by the level of investment it gets in transport and other sectors. Money is no object when it comes to investing in London's infrastructure.
And this disparity is arguably one of the factors why London was the only English region to vote remain.
Yougov only has UKIP voters backing No Deal by a majority
It's about honouring the referendum result to leave which was voted on by 17 million people. Not to mention both main parties pledging to leave the EU in their manifestos.
This isn't some silly game to get back at certain MPs who aren't doing what you want.
' I think people just voted to leave – not on any other details. So what you do is say, “52% said we should leave and 48% said we should remain, so the answer is we leave but we don’t go far.” That’s the only way you can really hold the country together.'
Which is basically either May's Deal or Norway. And means that when around half the 52 have realised what a mess we've created, we can ask nicely if we can rejoin.
Don't these people realise how hypocritical they look?
We should be pursuing the renegotiation that Prodi admits the EU would want once May's deal is killed off by the House of Commons. They could tweak the backstop, or admit no agreement will pass and put measures in place. Call it No Deal +, where we haven't locked ourselves into the terms of the Trade Deal in advance, but put in place pragmatic arrangments to keep trade flowing between the EU and the UK.
The committed leavers in parliament are not going to get any hard leave through the house, and have to rely on extended chaos preventing any other option, which not all agree with since only some of them want no deal at all. So this may be as hard a leave as is on offer. It's that, Brexit in name only, or no brexit at all, take your pick.
Because the deal is not really failing because leaver MPs don't think it is enough of a clean break. Yes, many dozens are opposed on that basis, but even if nearly all the ERG voted for the deal it would still fail if the DUP and every other party was opposed. The deal is failing both because the leavers don't like it enough, and barely anyone else, particularly in Labour, will back it.
Therefore any deal needs to secure some level of support from Labour or the others. The only way that will happen is if it is softer than May's deal, so any Brexit deal we get must be softer.
The biggest opportunity the ERG have of Brexit occurring at all is Labour and Tory remainers trying for remain too much and failing.
Femi, who has been one of the most articulate campaigners, and one who has been active in all parts of England, has been emphasising this recently, such as:
https://twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1070935943593377793?s=19
Norway+ sounds a good outcome to me, very easy to Rejoin from that position. Presumably just requires a new political declaration, as the WA would be unchanged, being effectively Norway+ until Dec 2020.
Arguably the folly of leavers in not reaching out is the reason why they're now panicking about a second referendum. I'm panicking because Remainers haven't tried either but are increasingly convinced they'd win because er...
And I suspect that is the important thing here, what other things could we have lined up to help / solve Austerity Leaverstan as A50 is revoked as a impossible task...
Dreadful weather. Cold, rainy, windy, gloomy.
In other words Norway has freedom of movement - but manages it so it isn't a beacon for the unemployed, unskilled or low paid who won't pay their way. Unlike the UK which is a free for all as one might say.
I don't see Norway doing the Tories electoral prospects much good if FOM stays without Norway's welfare systems and controls and barriers.
I suspect we shall never know. Since most Labour MPs want to remain, it seems more likely if offered a referendum for that vs the deal as it stands, they would decide there is less need to renegotiate after all (or reluctantly state there is no time left). Getting enough Tories on board for that is trickier.
But there's no doubt that in 1919-21 Edith Wilson was de facto President of the United States.
Sadly our PM did none of those things.
That said, being at the sharp end of globalisation is not an easy thing to fix, as we see across the globe whether in Ohio or Lusaka.
C'mon peeps. Do keep up
new thread -->