Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
And with the government and the EU clearly expecting each other to blink at the last minute, it could well happen by accident.
That depends on what Parliament votes for, even if it does not vote for the Deal it is still likely to vote for a permanent Customs Union over No Deal and the EU would agree to that
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
May's deal simply resets the argument to the beginning with another two years for us all to enjoy hearing it.
In theory yes but in reality I think that we will find that much of the "transition" becomes permanent. Which I personally am reasonably happy with.
So the only way we actually leave is that we no longer have MEPs and representation at the meetings, while we have to meekly accept every new regulation they throw at us?
And we will no longer be in the CAP, the CFP, will no longer have FoM (although immigration is unlikely to fall much given our shortage of labour), will have much greater discretion and accountability in social and employment matters, there will be no direct effect regulations, we will not be subject to the CJEU, our responsibility to implement directives will be limited to SM issues and we will have a choice, albeit a choice with significant consequences if we don't. Its a soft Brexit but no one will be able to say May has not delivered Brexit.
My guess is that we will end up with the CU as well, its just too damn convenient, but that will be the trickiest bit for May to sell.
But all of those things continue as-is during the transition period though, the deal (if agreed) takes effect from after the transition period finishes. So an indefinite transition would still leave us paying in billions a year and subject to freedom of movement.
That is not my reading of the WA. Existing rights are protected but there is not unlimited FoM thereafter. But I need to go so I can't quote chapter and verse right now.
I thought it was that FOM continued until the end of the transition period, as opposed to March 29th.
Less time on here today is probably better for most of us, not sure too much work got done yesterday! No more defections today please.
Soubry and Grieve are Conservatives, though, if not precisely from my wing, so I can only conclude Brexit is driving them out.
I'm not a fan, but Soubry has always been a centrist - she was an SDP supporter. She is vigorously liberal on social issues, e.g. held a public meeting in her constituncy to confront evangelicals over gay marriage. I'd be surprised if she returned to the Tories.
Grieve, by contrast, is undoubtedly solidly Conservative, and merely disagrees on one issue. The Tories would be idiots to force him out.
They may not be able to keep him in. He wants them to remain and has been complicit in helping no deal because he thinks it helps us remain to have no deal as the alternative. Thoroughly dishonest man using his eloquence to disguise that.
Soubry and Grieve are Conservatives, though, if not precisely from my wing, so I can only conclude Brexit is driving them out.
I'm not a fan, but Soubry has always been a centrist - she was an SDP supporter. She is vigorously liberal on social issues, e.g. held a public meeting in her constituncy to confront evangelicals over gay marriage. I'd be surprised if she returned to the Tories.
Grieve, by contrast, is undoubtedly solidly Conservative, and merely disagrees on one issue. The Tories would be idiots to force him out.
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
There's no moving on, all the difficult decisions have been punted into the next two years.
The Tory response to the defections thus far seems to be to pretend that nothing of any importance has happened.
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
Her basic pitch seems to be that the Tories have moved well to the right. That won’t change after 29th March. At some point the FTA negotiations will begin. They will be even more all-encompassing and will lead to big rows on any number of issues, including immigration - an issue that Soubry feels very strongly about.
But, Brexit apart (which is not really a left/right issue at all) what is the evidence for that? This government has yet to find a problem to which more public spending is not the answer. The last 2 budgets have abandoned any pretense of austerity. As a result the overall tax burden edges up rather than down and deficit reduction is in the lap of economic growth.
Does anyone seriously think we are not going to see more of this? It is quite clear that Amber Rudd does not believe for a minute that UC is fit for purpose in its current form. We have got the recent decision by Javid but does anyone really think that any responsible Home Secretary could do anything else? The government seems more focused on Ed Miliband's manifesto than their own.
Earlier this week Sajid Javid essentially decided to deprive a days old, entirely innocent baby of its right to be brought up in the UK because he wants to lead the Conservative party.
Home secretary Sajid Javid yesterday left the door open for Islamic State bride Shamima Begum's baby boy to come to Britain.
He told the Commons Begum’s ban from returning to Britain will have no impact on her baby son’s nationality.
Javid said: “Children should not suffer. So, if a parent does lose their British citizenship, it does not affect the rights of their child.”
Why is there a Labour split hashtag but not a Conservative one? Surely the same question applies to the blue defectors? #MediaBias and have you noticed LBC is only one letter away from BBC? #TinFoil #LizardPeople
Momentum To Launch Ground Campaign Against Labour Defectors
The grassroots organisation that helped propel Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership will stage events with “celebrities” in the constituencies of those who have split. Laura Parker, Momentum’s national coordinator, slammed the defectors, including Chuka Umunna, for “working hand-in-hand with the Tories”.
Is it ironic that after all the hilarity of the Corbynite loyalty pledge that went around last week that many many mps on both sides in effect need to make a loyalty pledge or else have people think they might split?
Good morning, my fellow denizens of the Hundred Acre Wood.
Last day of the first test. There's another fairly shortly. Williams will be hoping to lay down some mileage.
Williams looked good yesterday, as it finally got on to the track. They're being rather coy about exactly what happened, but the rumour is that a couple of major parts arrived late from suppliers due to late specifications from the team. Hopefully it's just a minor embarrassment rather than symptoms of something more serious.
Second test is next week, Tuesday to Friday, also in Barcelona.
There is reportedly serious disquiet over a Paddy Lowe’s inability to manage development.
Paddy could be in real trouble, but apparently he's now a shareholder in the team rather than simply an employee, so it's going to cost a lot to buy him out. More likely is they hire an experienced project manager to work alongside him, but Claire and the Board should have realised this last year. They should have managed Paddy more closely - not getting the car to the first test on time shouldn't be an option.
They ought not to have recruited him in the first place. It seems (to me, at least) that his reputation has been made by being in the right team at the right time, alongside rather more impressive individuals, rather than any particular qualities of his own.
the Brighton Kemptown MP also revealed Corbyn had come under huge pressure “behind closed doors” from MPs over the walkouts and was now “edging” towards a new “remain and reform” Brexit policy.
“I am almost certain, when the votes come, that we will be in a position of remaining in and reforming the EU – and those scabs that left will suddenly regret the day that they ever left the Labour Party.”
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
May's deal simply resets the argument to the beginning with another two years for us all to enjoy hearing it.
In theory yes but in reality I think that we will find that much of the "transition" becomes permanent. Which I personally am reasonably happy with.
So the only way we actually leave is that we no longer have MEPs and representation at the meetings, while we have to meekly accept every new regulation they throw at us?
And we will no longer be in the CAP, the CFP, will no longer have FoM (although immigration is unlikely to fall much given our shortage of labour), will have much greater discretion and accountability in social and employment matters, there will be no direct effect regulations, we will not be subject to the CJEU, our responsibility to implement directives will be limited to SM issues and we will have a choice, albeit a choice with significant consequences if we don't. Its a soft Brexit but no one will be able to say May has not delivered Brexit.
My guess is that we will end up with the CU as well, its just too damn convenient, but that will be the trickiest bit for May to sell.
Not formally in the CAP or CFP, but if we want to sell our stuff, we will take the rules on those, just as we will on everything else. I suspect Sandpit is right. We will go through massive disruption with irreversible damage, simply to empty chair the meetings that decide what we need to do. Practically speaking those meetings won't take our interest into account, let alone the lack of democratic accountability in just doing what we are told, with no participation in the decision.
On the TIGgers, I agree with those who feel that May will get her deal through. As long as No Deal is the alternative then she will win a vote, and may even get some concessions to ease the passage.
I'd go one step further and suggest that the TIGgers already expect this to happen, and their strategy is to supplant Labour as the major opposition with the primary aim of rejoining.
.
I think that’s spot on
Wollaston, Allen and Soubry are being played. It would be great for them to return to the fold - I suspect Allen will become a LibDem, Wollaston an independent and Soubry will end up a Tory peer,
None of them will be MPs after the next election
The Tory Three seem, politically, to have got themselves bent way out of shape by their hatred of Brexit. If we had voted to Remain, I doubt any of the three would have made a move. That they were all elected within the past two years on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit might make their inner turmoil easier to understand. But ethically, it's much harder to see they can just carry on as MPs without offering themselves up for immediate re-election. They are currently sat in the House of Commons under false pretences. Not many other jobs where you could behave as they have done and yet continue to draw your salary.
From the soundbites I've heard from Allen et al, it's not just the Brexit vote: it's the fact that Brexit has utterly consumed government, and the backwards-looking, navel-gazing right-wing tendency so eloquently evoked by JRM and his fellow winnets is in control.
This government is not a conservative government. It's barely a Conservative government. Some might say it's not even a government ...
In Allen's case, it's down to being centre-left in outlook (not a left-wing Conservative) and joining a centr-right party by mistake.
Her pitch yesterday was clearly to her constituency - sounding like a Lib Dem - she's also provided the headline 'Destroy the Tory Party' which will make the return of the conservative Conservative Soubry much more difficult.
I’m not losing too much sleep over Wollaston and Allen.
Soubry and Grieve are Conservatives, though, if not precisely from my wing, so I can only conclude Brexit is driving them out.
Wollaston has been in the wrong party all along. But thoughtful Conservatives ought to ponder Heidi Allen. There are a lot of people like her around in business nowadays. And very few of them are joining the Tories. Why do think that is? It is pretty obvious to me.
And the answer is constituents get another vote every 5 years, and "the people" get another vote never
I'd have thoughttheir answer is they cannot very well transform politics and help force a people's vote if they resign and are busy fighting a by election.
Is it ironic that after all the hilarity of the Corbynite loyalty pledge that went around last week that many many mps on both sides in effect need to make a loyalty pledge or else have people think they might split?
and the numpty journalist will have to phone them all up again tomorrow
Big picture. The 2017 vote share is likely to become something the left go on about for the next fifty years. The Brexit effect will be forgotten. It will be much like the way the 1983 result got trotted out to prove that left wing policies repel voters, forgetting the Falklands and the Alliance had quite a lot to do with it.
An interesting example of how the Falklands War - which had little or no effect on the 1983 general election - became an alibi for the Left.
The Tories were back in the lead in several polls during the early months of 1982. Indeed, one on the 5th February (admittedly a clear outlier) had them very close to their actual 83 vote share. The overall trend was however clearly one of steady improvement long before Galtieri's act of insanity.
Moreover, the SDP probably took a large number of votes from the Tories, as discussed on these threads a few days ago, while providing a home for many who would otherwise have abstained. It might have been an even worse defeat for Labour without them. But the Labour party doesn't want to admit that truth.
As with 1983 so with 2017. Corbyn's surprisingly high vote share doesn't prove left wing policies are popular. In fact, rather the reverse. It proves they can't beat a divided and exhausted government with an unpopular manifesto running on a divisive and controversial main policy.
But Labour under Corbyn will unfortunately keep kidding themselves 'one more heave and then we can embezzle lots of money to make ourselves rich like Chavez did have true Socialism.' And will keep losing as a result.
... I think voting to leave the EU was marginally a left of centre thing to do (even if most of the leave voters are probably to the right of centre).
I think you can make the case that the EU has primarily been run in the interests of big business, and one of the justifications for the single market is that it creates a larger home market to make it easier for big pan-European businesses to develop, so this seems relatively explicit.
However, I think this has been a choice, and is not inherent in the existence of a Union of European nations At a fundamental level I think that co-operating across existing national boundaries is something that is very much in line with the underlying principles of the left - "workers of the world unite" and all that. So I see Brexit as very much a right-wing project.
A confident and strong European trade union movement would have done more to organise at a European level, but instead they are trapped in competing with each other to defend jobs in country A rather than country B. Most employers do not have these internal tensions in their management and so can have the upper hand against their employees. The left have been on the defensive for so long that they've forgotten how to be hopeful about new opportunities and to be imaginative about using them for their advantage.
The Tory Three seem, politically, to have got themselves bent way out of shape by their hatred of Brexit. If we had voted to Remain, I doubt any of the three would have made a move. That they were all elected within the past two years on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit might make their inner turmoil easier to understand. But ethically, it's much harder to see they can just carry on as MPs without offering themselves up for immediate re-election. They are currently sat in the House of Commons under false pretences. Not many other jobs where you could behave as they have done and yet continue to draw your salary.
From the soundbites I've heard from Allen et al, it's not just the Brexit vote: it's the fact that Brexit has utterly consumed government, and the backwards-looking, navel-gazing right-wing tendency so eloquently evoked by JRM and his fellow winnets is in control.
This government is not a conservative government. It's barely a Conservative government. Some might say it's not even a government ...
In Allen's case, it's down to being centre-left in outlook (not a left-wing Conservative) and joining a centr-right party by mistake.
Her pitch yesterday was clearly to her constituency - sounding like a Lib Dem - she's also provided the headline 'Destroy the Tory Party' which will make the return of the conservative Conservative Soubry much more difficult.
I’m not losing too much sleep over Wollaston and Allen.
Soubry and Grieve are Conservatives, though, if not precisely from my wing, so I can only conclude Brexit is driving them out.
Wollaston has been in the wrong party all along. But thoughtful Conservatives ought to ponder Heidi Allen. There are a lot of people like her around in business nowadays. And very few of them are joining the Tories. Why do think that is? It is pretty obvious to me.
It is. The Conservatives are no longer the party of business, and have mutated into the party of fuck business in thrall to an unhinged monomania.
Big picture. The 2017 vote share is likely to become something the left go on about for the next fifty years. The Brexit effect will be forgotten. It will be much like the way the 1983 result got trotted out to prove that left wing policies repel voters, forgetting the Falklands and the Alliance had quite a lot to do with it.
An interesting example of how the Falklands War - which had little or no effect on the 1983 general election - became an alibi for the Left.
The Tories were back in the lead in several polls during the early months of 1982. Indeed, one on the 5th February (admittedly a clear outlier) had them very close to their actual 83 vote share. The overall trend was however clearly one of steady improvement long before Galtieri's act of insanity.
Moreover, the SDP probably took a large number of votes from the Tories, as discussed on these threads a few days ago, while providing a home for many who would otherwise have abstained. It might have been an even worse defeat for Labour without them. But the Labour party doesn't want to admit that truth.
As with 1983 so with 2017. Corbyn's surprisingly high vote share doesn't prove left wing policies are popular. In fact, rather the reverse. It proves they can't beat a divided and exhausted government with an unpopular manifesto running on a divisive and controversial main policy.
But Labour under Corbyn will unfortunately keep kidding themselves 'one more heave and then we can embezzle lots of money to make ourselves rich like Chavez did have true Socialism.'
There was however a build up to the war - it wasn't a complete surprise - and the complete switch in the news agenda helped puncture the SDP's balloon.
Edit/ but you are certainly right that psephological analysis suggests that without the SDP the Tory landslide could well have been bigger
Except that Hammond is not the Conservative party - and is regularly derided as a traitor by the ultras. His position is not entirely unlike that of (say) Tom Watson.
the Brighton Kemptown MP also revealed Corbyn had come under huge pressure “behind closed doors” from MPs over the walkouts and was now “edging” towards a new “remain and reform” Brexit policy.
“I am almost certain, when the votes come, that we will be in a position of remaining in and reforming the EU – and those scabs that left will suddenly regret the day that they ever left the Labour Party.”
Switching from leave to remain woukd be huge indeed. But remain and reform is a nonsense. The EU would meaningfully reform when we threatened to quit, they sure as shit won't do so when we return with tail between our legs. It's remain and shut up.
In fairness, he does seem to be following the party line....
He is a politician so should have anticipated the question but really, what's Brexit got to do with the Mayor anyway? It's not like Newcastle is clamouring to leave the UK and develop its own foreign and trade policies. They may as well have asked for his opinion on London's low emission zone or returning ISIL brides.
Paul Waugh is talking absolute fucking shit in that second tweet. The 2021 QNLZ EASTPAC deployment decision was taken over a year ago and, as it involves the cooperation of the USMC, French Navy and Dutch Navy, is already in the planning stage.
Having said that, the Fireplace Salesman has turned it into a political problem where none existed so it might end up being curtailed to an Indian Ocean deployment. This would also save a lot of money and solve the RAF/RN air wing harmony regs problem.
However, I think this has been a choice, and is not inherent in the existence of a Union of European nations At a fundamental level I think that co-operating across existing national boundaries is something that is very much in line with the underlying principles of the left - "workers of the world unite" and all that. So I see Brexit as very much a right-wing project.
The child suffers by being deprived of its mother. Sajid knows this, but wants to be the leader of the Conservative party.
The whole thing is ridiculous because she will inevitably end up back here anyway. All Javid is doing by playing to the gallery is increasing the amount the taxpayer will have to fork out to protect her and her son from vigilantes. She has no legal right to be in Syria, and the Bangladeshis are absolutely right to refuse to have her. The idea that we can simply expel people we don't like and expect some other country to take them is just arrogant colonial era thinking. (If anyone is struggling to understand why the Bangladeshis don't see her as their problem, imagine she was Australian and her parents had emigrated to Australia from the UK decades ago; how many PB reactionaries would be arguing for her to come here?)
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
There's no moving on, all the difficult decisions have been punted into the next two years.
The Tory response to the defections thus far seems to be to pretend that nothing of any importance has happened.
The Tory Three seem, politically, to have got themselves bent way out of shape by their hatred of Brexit. If we had voted to Remain, I doubt any of the three would have made a move. That they were all elected within the past two years on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit might make their inner turmoil easier to understand. But ethically, it's much harder to see they can just carry on as MPs without offering themselves up for immediate re-election. They are currently sat in the House of Commons under false pretences. Not many other jobs where you could behave as they have done and yet continue to draw your salary.
From the soundbites I've heard from Allen et al, it's not just the Brexit vote: it's the fact that Brexit has utterly consumed government, and the backwards-looking, navel-gazing right-wing tendency so eloquently evoked by JRM and his fellow winnets is in control.
This government is not a conservative government. It's barely a Conservative government. Some might say it's not even a government ...
In Allen's case, it's down to being centre-left in outlook (not a left-wing Conservative) and joining a centr-right party by mistake.
Her pitch yesterday was clearly to her constituency - sounding like a Lib Dem - she's also provided the headline 'Destroy the Tory Party' which will make the return of the conservative Conservative Soubry much more difficult.
I’m not losing too much sleep over Wollaston and Allen.
Soubry and Grieve are Conservatives, though, if not precisely from my wing, so I can only conclude Brexit is driving them out.
Wollaston has been in the wrong party all along. But thoughtful Conservatives ought to ponder Heidi Allen. There are a lot of people like her around in business nowadays. And very few of them are joining the Tories. Why do think that is? It is pretty obvious to me.
It is. The Conservatives are no longer the party of business, and have mutated into the party of fuck business in thrall to an unhinged monomania.
Yes exactly. But none of the Conservatives I know in real life see it.
Soubs has changed her twitter header pic. Now shows march for 2nd vote.
If May is getting something through please have it be before that march at the end of March. Would be interesting to see the mood of the marchers if the first hurdle had already occurred.
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
Her basic pitch seems to be that the Tories have moved well to the right. That won’t change after 29th March. At some point the FTA negotiations will begin. They will be even more all-encompassing and will lead to big rows on any number of issues, including immigration - an issue that Soubry feels very strongly about.
But, Brexit apart (which is not really a left/right issue at all) what is the evidence for that? This government has yet to find a problem to which more public spending is not the answer. The last 2 budgets have abandoned any pretense of austerity. As a result the overall tax burden edges up rather than down and deficit reduction is in the lap of economic growth.
Does anyone seriously think we are not going to see more of this? It is quite clear that Amber Rudd does not believe for a minute that UC is fit for purpose in its current form. We have got the recent decision by Javid but does anyone really think that any responsible Home Secretary could do anything else? The government seems more focused on Ed Miliband's manifesto than their own.
Brexit is very much a left/right issue. The political voices in favour are overwhelmingly reactionary nationalists.
I disagree that it is very much a left/right issue, but as a leave voter myself, I think voting to leave the EU was marginally a left of centre thing to do (even if most of the leave voters are probably to the right of centre).
I agree that the Brexit divide is neither entirely orthogonal to, nor entirely in line with the left/right divide.
But to call it marginally a left of centre thing is like describing a room filled only with ERGers and Momentum members as marginally to the right or left of centre.
There was however a build up to the war - it wasn't a complete surprise - and the complete switch in the news agenda helped puncture the SDP's balloon.
Edit/ but you are certainly right that psephological analysis suggests that without the SDP the Tory landslide could well have been bigger
You are suggesting that the Thatcher government's chronic mishandling of Galtieri's much-telegraphed intentions to assault the Falklands boosted their support?
The Tory Three seem, politically, to have got themselves bent way out of shape by their hatred of Brexit. If we had voted to Remain, I doubt any of the three would have made a move. That they were all elected within the past two years on a manifesto commitment to implement Brexit might make their inner turmoil easier to understand. But ethically, it's much harder to see they can just carry on as MPs without offering themselves up for immediate re-election. They are currently sat in the House of Commons under false pretences. Not many other jobs where you could behave as they have done and yet continue to draw your salary.
From the soundbites I've heard from Allen et al, it's not just the Brexit vote: it's the fact that Brexit has utterly consumed government, and the backwards-looking, navel-gazing right-wing tendency so eloquently evoked by JRM and his fellow winnets is in control.
This government is not a conservative government. It's barely a Conservative government. Some might say it's not even a government ...
In Allen's case, it's down to being centre-left in outlook (not a left-wing Conservative) and joining a centr-right party by mistake.
Her pitch yesterday was clearly to her constituency - sounding like a Lib Dem - she's also provided the headline 'Destroy the Tory Party' which will make the return of the conservative Conservative Soubry much more difficult.
I’m not losing too much sleep over Wollaston and Allen.
Soubry and Grieve are Conservatives, though, if not precisely from my wing, so I can only conclude Brexit is driving them out.
Wollaston has been in the wrong party all along. But thoughtful Conservatives ought to ponder Heidi Allen. There are a lot of people like her around in business nowadays. And very few of them are joining the Tories. Why do think that is? It is pretty obvious to me.
It is. The Conservatives are no longer the party of business, and have mutated into the party of fuck business in thrall to an unhinged monomania.
I have to agree with this. There gets to a point where Brexit, certainly the one pursued by the ERG is leading to the costs being far greater than the gains.
I still believe that we should not be part of the political construct of the EU, but we should seek all the economic advantages which work for us. Which means both the customs union and the single market.. Thats what we need to work for. So if the choice is no-deal or remain. It should be remain.
the Brighton Kemptown MP also revealed Corbyn had come under huge pressure “behind closed doors” from MPs over the walkouts and was now “edging” towards a new “remain and reform” Brexit policy.
“I am almost certain, when the votes come, that we will be in a position of remaining in and reforming the EU – and those scabs that left will suddenly regret the day that they ever left the Labour Party.”
Switching from leave to remain woukd be huge indeed. But remain and reform is a nonsense. The EU would meaningfully reform when we threatened to quit, they sure as shit won't do so when we return with tail between our legs. It's remain and shut up.
Reform is an evolving process. Once we've abandoned all this Leave and 'tight little island' nonsense, and come to our senses it will not be long before we find British representatives co-operating with others on reforms.
It's this mad 'us against the rest' rubbish which has poisoned the discussion.
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
Her basic pitch seems to be that the Tories have moved well to the right. That won’t change after 29th March. At some point the FTA negotiations will begin. They will be even more all-encompassing and will lead to big rows on any number of issues, including immigration - an issue that Soubry feels very strongly about.
But, Brexit apart (which is not really a left/right issue at all) what is the evidence for that? This government has yet to find a problem to which more public spending is not the answer. The last 2 budgets have abandoned any pretense of austerity. As a result the overall tax burden edges up rather than down and deficit reduction is in the lap of economic growth.
Does anyone seriously think we are not going to see more of this? It is quite clear that Amber Rudd does not believe for a minute that UC is fit for purpose in its current form. We have got the recent decision by Javid but does anyone really think that any responsible Home Secretary could do anything else? The government seems more focused on Ed Miliband's manifesto than their own.
Brexit is very much a left/right issue. The political voices in favour are overwhelmingly reactionary nationalists.
I disagree that it is very much a left/right issue, but as a leave voter myself, I think voting to leave the EU was marginally a left of centre thing to do (even if most of the leave voters are probably to the right of centre).
The UK population is overwhelmingly politically moderate - its Overton window so to speak is not gigantic. One of the things that has gone wrong right now is that many have stopped seeing the most important issue of our day - Brexit - as a difficult democratic political issue between people who are moderates. Dialogue has been replaced by the language of extremism. Not a good idea.
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
There's no moving on, all the difficult decisions have been punted into the next two years.
The Tory response to the defections thus far seems to be to pretend that nothing of any importance has happened.
Pretend?
QED.
Whooooooosh.......
At least you seem to be able to hear a point narrowly eluding you.
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
Her basic pitch seems to be that the Tories have moved well to the right. That won’t change after 29th March. At some point the FTA negotiations will begin. They will be even more all-encompassing and will lead to big rows on any number of issues, including immigration - an issue that Soubry feels very strongly about.
But, Brexit apart (which is not really a left/right issue at all) what is the evidence for that? This government has yet to find a problem to which more public spending is not the answer. The last 2 budgets have abandoned any pretense of austerity. As a result the overall tax burden edges up rather than down and deficit reduction is in the lap of economic growth.
Does anyone seriously think we are not going to see more of this? It is quite clear that Amber Rudd does not believe for a minute that UC is fit for purpose in its current form. We have got the recent decision by Javid but does anyone really think that any responsible Home Secretary could do anything else? The government seems more focused on Ed Miliband's manifesto than their own.
Brexit apart is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Earlier this week Sajid Javid essentially decided to deprive a days old, entirely innocent baby of its right to be brought up in the UK because he wants to lead the Conservative party. He knows his constituency, as does Anna Soubry.
A baby born in Syria to a Dutch father and a mother who clearly feels no loyalty to Britain. Sometimes parental choices have consequences. This is one of those times.
Soubry and Grieve are Conservatives, though, if not precisely from my wing, so I can only conclude Brexit is driving them out.
I'm not a fan, but Soubry has always been a centrist - she was an SDP supporter. She is vigorously liberal on social issues, e.g. held a public meeting in her constituncy to confront evangelicals over gay marriage. I'd be surprised if she returned to the Tories.
Grieve, by contrast, is undoubtedly solidly Conservative, and merely disagrees on one issue. The Tories would be idiots to force him out.
Soubry and Grieve are Conservatives, though, if not precisely from my wing, so I can only conclude Brexit is driving them out.
I'm not a fan, but Soubry has always been a centrist - she was an SDP supporter. She is vigorously liberal on social issues, e.g. held a public meeting in her constituncy to confront evangelicals over gay marriage. I'd be surprised if she returned to the Tories.
Grieve, by contrast, is undoubtedly solidly Conservative, and merely disagrees on one issue. The Tories would be idiots to force him out.
It's more that he wants to bring about the circumstances that will lead him to walk out.
Lloyd Russell Moyle epitomises everything that is wrong with the current Labour Party. Entitled, arrogant, greedy, not very bright and filled with deep loathing for anyone who doesn't slavishly follow the party line (ironically this has included him on occasion as he's well to the left of Corbyn on things like housing).
But that also means we shouldn't pay much attention to him. It would be like quoting Hollobone's views on Tory defectors after he's had five neat whiskies in four minutes.
But it would be - if the party switched to backing remain far fewer woukd want to split.
Certainly it would stem the risk of the TIGs getting critical mass in member and councillor defections. But they will have to be quick. And Corbyn would need to display some uncharacteristic political deftness.
the Brighton Kemptown MP also revealed Corbyn had come under huge pressure “behind closed doors” from MPs over the walkouts and was now “edging” towards a new “remain and reform” Brexit policy.
“I am almost certain, when the votes come, that we will be in a position of remaining in and reforming the EU – and those scabs that left will suddenly regret the day that they ever left the Labour Party.”
Switching from leave to remain woukd be huge indeed. But remain and reform is a nonsense. The EU would meaningfully reform when we threatened to quit, they sure as shit won't do so when we return with tail between our legs. It's remain and shut up.
Reform is an evolving process. Once we've abandoned all this Leave and 'tight little island' nonsense, and come to our senses it will not be long before we find British representatives co-operating with others on reforms.
It's this mad 'us against the rest' rubbish which has poisoned the discussion.
I'm not saying it's us against the rest. I'm saying it's an enormous and therefore inflexible institution which sets out a moral imperative to move in a certain direction. Tweaks to that are possible but not major course changes. We need to accept that and decide if we can handle that, not pretend an enormous inflexible institution will change to suit us.
It's the biggest unicorn of all. Nothing of substance can change, you cannot adjust the skeleton of the project. Presenting minor reforms as the same thing is crazy. We need to take it for what it is, not a pipe dream of what it might have been.
It's the best option to remain now. And of course it's worth trying to adjust things. But don't make me laugh by suggesting substantive change woukd be on the agenda. That doesn't happen with something that large.
There was however a build up to the war - it wasn't a complete surprise - and the complete switch in the news agenda helped puncture the SDP's balloon.
Edit/ but you are certainly right that psephological analysis suggests that without the SDP the Tory landslide could well have been bigger
You are suggesting that the Thatcher government's chronic mishandling of Galtieri's much-telegraphed intentions to assault the Falklands boosted their support?
I have to say I feel this is a novel conclusion.
I am saying that the news focus was turning towards the Falklands before the actual invasion. As I recall there was that incident with the scrap metal merchants occupying one of the uninhabited islands a few weeks prior. And all the sabre rattling in Argentina.
Paul Waugh is talking absolute fucking shit in that second tweet. The 2021 QNLZ EASTPAC deployment decision was taken over a year ago and, as it involves the cooperation of the USMC, French Navy and Dutch Navy, is already in the planning stage.
So you're saying a country must not be allowed to do things because others disapprove and only remaining is acceptable. Helpful.
I think our friends are pointing out that our course of action is inadvisable. As good friends ought to do.
Scott is saying only remaining can be acceptable. We would continue to be friends with our friends if we left, and yes it would be more difficult but the Scott's of the world act like no one will even talk to the UK afterwards. The world talks and works with far worse.
In what way would the EU 'reform'? It considers unification of Europe as the goal and we're on the road to that end. Will it become less bureaucratic? Sorry, that was a joke, obviously. The EU believes it is right, so reform = error.
It might be right, it might not, but doubt about the direction of travel is non-existent. It may delay but a change of direction in any way is impossible. In some ways, it is in a half-way house. "Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er".
There was however a build up to the war - it wasn't a complete surprise - and the complete switch in the news agenda helped puncture the SDP's balloon.
Edit/ but you are certainly right that psephological analysis suggests that without the SDP the Tory landslide could well have been bigger
You are suggesting that the Thatcher government's chronic mishandling of Galtieri's much-telegraphed intentions to assault the Falklands boosted their support?
I have to say I feel this is a novel conclusion.
I am saying that the news focus was turning towards the Falklands before the actual invasion. As I recall there was that incident with the scrap metal merchants occupying one of the uninhabited islands a few weeks prior. And all the sabre rattling in Argentina.
The Franks Report largely exonerated the government although there is no denying that the planned withdrawal of HMS Endurance was interpreted by the Argentinians as Britain not giving a fuck about the F.I.
Dominic Grieve confirms on Newsnight he would leave the Tory Party if No Deal
Grieve's own actions make No Deal more likely, so he's seeking a pretext to leave the party.
I think Grieve is a Conservative, though.
On everything except Brexit. The regret and respect response yesterday may well keep him in the tent for now but May obviously can’t count on his vote for anything Brexit related.
All of which makes me wonder how different the political landscape might look in a month if May gets her deal through and we finally start to move on. I think Soubry in particular might regret her decision yesterday.
Her basic pitch seems to be that the Tories have moved well to the right. That won’t change after 29th March. At some point the FTA negotiations will begin. They will be even more all-encompassing and will lead to big rows on any number of issues, including immigration - an issue that Soubry feels very strongly about.
But, Brexit apart (which is not really a left/right issue at all) what is the evidence for that? This government has yet to find a problem to which more public spending is not the answer. The last 2 budgets have abandoned any pretense of austerity. As a result the overall tax burden edges up rather than down and deficit reduction is in the lap of economic growth.
Does anyone seriously think we are not going to see more of this? It is quite clear that Amber Rudd does not believe for a minute that UC is fit for purpose in its current form. We have got the recent decision by Javid but does anyone really think that any responsible Home Secretary could do anything else? The government seems more focused on Ed Miliband's manifesto than their own.
Brexit apart is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Earlier this week Sajid Javid essentially decided to deprive a days old, entirely innocent baby of its right to be brought up in the UK because he wants to lead the Conservative party. He knows his constituency, as does Anna Soubry.
A baby born in Syria to a Dutch father and a mother who clearly feels no loyalty to Britain. Sometimes parental choices have consequences. This is one of those times.
Byelections andreferenda are not The same thing, that is such a lame attempt. I don't say we cannot revisit it and even I know that's lame. You really cannot help yourself
That said, MPs changing party is a different kettle of fish to the referendum. Also, voters elect an individual. The party may be a motivating factor, but the election is not handing over the seat to a party who then determines the MP, but handing the seat over to an individual.
There was however a build up to the war - it wasn't a complete surprise - and the complete switch in the news agenda helped puncture the SDP's balloon.
Edit/ but you are certainly right that psephological analysis suggests that without the SDP the Tory landslide could well have been bigger
You are suggesting that the Thatcher government's chronic mishandling of Galtieri's much-telegraphed intentions to assault the Falklands boosted their support?
I have to say I feel this is a novel conclusion.
I am saying that the news focus was turning towards the Falklands before the actual invasion. As I recall there was that incident with the scrap metal merchants occupying one of the uninhabited islands a few weeks prior. And all the sabre rattling in Argentina.
The Franks Report largely exonerated the government although there is no denying that the planned withdrawal of HMS Endurance was interpreted by the Argentinians as Britain not giving a fuck about the F.I.
Jim Callaghan summed it up vividly:
For 338 paragraphs the Franks report painted a splendid picture, delineated the light and the shade, and the glowing colours in it, and when Franks got to paragraph 339 he got fed up with the canvas he was painting and chucked a bucket of whitewash over it.
In what way would the EU 'reform'? It considers unification of Europe as the goal and we're on the road to that end. Will it become less bureaucratic? Sorry, that was a joke, obviously. The EU believes it is right, so reform = error.
It might be right, it might not, but doubt about the direction of travel is non-existent. It may delay but a change of direction in any way is impossible. In some ways, it is in a half-way house. "Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er".
Structures and processes can and should be reformed.
Well it's certainly preferable for TIG than the converse, but I wouldn't have thought it was a strong determinant.
This has all the hallmarks of a flash in the pan, doesn’t it?
If it were just the politicians playing games in Westminster, without the general disillusion with politics in general and the main parties in particular, possibly so. But - as many here have been saying for a long time - the wider political environment looks ripe for some sort of realignment.
Well it's certainly preferable for TIG than the converse, but I wouldn't have thought it was a strong determinant.
This has all the hallmarks of a flash in the pan, doesn’t it?
If it were just the politicians playing games in Westminster, without the general disillusion with politics in general and the main parties in particular, possibly so. But - as many here have been saying for a long time - the wider political environment looks ripe for some sort of realignment.
We use the full range of capabilities available to disrupt and manage the return of individuals from the conflict zone. Where appropriate, we will also use nationality and immigration powers to deprive individuals of their British citizenship
Comments
wouldn’t it be better to work for things you believe in rather than spend your time guarding your back against those who hate you?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/decent-mps-can-see-their-parties-have-gone-bad-kqsl59vlq
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1098478725312757761
Less time on here today is probably better for most of us, not sure too much work got done yesterday! No more defections today please.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1098499678323249152
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1098500080519258113
https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1098499964278329344
Why is Justine Greening trending on twitter? Have I missed an announcement?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47313366
The grassroots organisation that helped propel Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership will stage events with “celebrities” in the constituencies of those who have split.
Laura Parker, Momentum’s national coordinator, slammed the defectors, including Chuka Umunna, for “working hand-in-hand with the Tories”.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/momentum-to-launch-ground-campaign-against-labour-defectors_uk_5c6d5c21e4b0e37a1ed3891c
“I am almost certain, when the votes come, that we will be in a position of remaining in and reforming the EU – and those scabs that left will suddenly regret the day that they ever left the Labour Party.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/labour-split-scabs-will-regret-it-says-corbyn-ally-lloyd-russell-moyle_uk_5c6dc41be4b0f40774cba687?ncid=other_twitter_cooo9wqtham&utm_campaign=share_twitter
Huge mess, but not an unexpected one.
The Tories were back in the lead in several polls during the early months of 1982. Indeed, one on the 5th February (admittedly a clear outlier) had them very close to their actual 83 vote share. The overall trend was however clearly one of steady improvement long before Galtieri's act of insanity.
Moreover, the SDP probably took a large number of votes from the Tories, as discussed on these threads a few days ago, while providing a home for many who would otherwise have abstained. It might have been an even worse defeat for Labour without them. But the Labour party doesn't want to admit that truth.
As with 1983 so with 2017. Corbyn's surprisingly high vote share doesn't prove left wing policies are popular. In fact, rather the reverse. It proves they can't beat a divided and exhausted government with an unpopular manifesto running on a divisive and controversial main policy.
But Labour under Corbyn will unfortunately keep kidding themselves 'one more heave and then we can
embezzle lots of money to make ourselves rich like Chavez didhave true Socialism.' And will keep losing as a result.However, I think this has been a choice, and is not inherent in the existence of a Union of European nations At a fundamental level I think that co-operating across existing national boundaries is something that is very much in line with the underlying principles of the left - "workers of the world unite" and all that. So I see Brexit as very much a right-wing project.
A confident and strong European trade union movement would have done more to organise at a European level, but instead they are trapped in competing with each other to defend jobs in country A rather than country B. Most employers do not have these internal tensions in their management and so can have the upper hand against their employees. The left have been on the defensive for so long that they've forgotten how to be hopeful about new opportunities and to be imaginative about using them for their advantage.
Brexit in 878 hours and 20 minutes.
Edit/ but you are certainly right that psephological analysis suggests that without the SDP the Tory landslide could well have been bigger
His position is not entirely unlike that of (say) Tom Watson.
Having said that, the Fireplace Salesman has turned it into a political problem where none existed so it might end up being curtailed to an Indian Ocean deployment. This would also save a lot of money and solve the RAF/RN air wing harmony regs problem.
But to call it marginally a left of centre thing is like describing a room filled only with ERGers and Momentum members as marginally to the right or left of centre.
I have to say I feel this is a novel conclusion.
I still believe that we should not be part of the political construct of the EU, but we should seek all the economic advantages which work for us. Which means both the customs union and the single market.. Thats what we need to work for. So if the choice is no-deal or remain. It should be remain.
https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1098276301239189504
It's this mad 'us against the rest' rubbish which has poisoned the discussion.
But that also means we shouldn't pay much attention to him. It would be like quoting Hollobone's views on Tory defectors after he's had five neat whiskies in four minutes.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
It's the biggest unicorn of all. Nothing of substance can change, you cannot adjust the skeleton of the project. Presenting minor reforms as the same thing is crazy. We need to take it for what it is, not a pipe dream of what it might have been.
It's the best option to remain now. And of course it's worth trying to adjust things. But don't make me laugh by suggesting substantive change woukd be on the agenda. That doesn't happen with something that large.
In what way would the EU 'reform'? It considers unification of Europe as the goal and we're on the road to that end. Will it become less bureaucratic? Sorry, that was a joke, obviously. The EU believes it is right, so reform = error.
It might be right, it might not, but doubt about the direction of travel is non-existent. It may delay but a change of direction in any way is impossible. In some ways, it is in a half-way house. "Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more, Returning were as tedious as go o'er".
That said, MPs changing party is a different kettle of fish to the referendum. Also, voters elect an individual. The party may be a motivating factor, but the election is not handing over the seat to a party who then determines the MP, but handing the seat over to an individual.
That's the way the system works.
For 338 paragraphs the Franks report painted a splendid picture, delineated the light and the shade, and the glowing colours in it, and when Franks got to paragraph 339 he got fed up with the canvas he was painting and chucked a bucket of whitewash over it.
You can't say people must have a right to vote, and NOT have a right to vote at the same time.
The bit not quoted:
We use the full range of capabilities available to disrupt and manage the return of individuals from the conflict zone. Where appropriate, we will also use nationality and immigration powers to deprive individuals of their British citizenship
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/716907/140618_CCS207_CCS0218929798-1_CONTEST_3.0_WEB.pdf