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.
And the discussions 'in principle' with the Argentines over some sort of joint sovereignty. There was a Parliamentary row in IIRC, late 1981, when it came out, led by Bernard Braine (Cons) and Peter Shore (Lab) over what our diplomats appeared to be up to.
Presumably this was before he decided that being Tory leader was the only thing that mattered to him.
Well, it was also before the woman in question gave unrepentant media interviews to all and sundry.
It's possible that there have been some managed returns of former ISIS supporters that have occurred without this media attention, and I should at least welcome Javid not choosing to make a big media issue out of those cases by his own actions (in contrast to Williamson with the aircraft carrier).
In this case Javid had the issue thrown into his in-tray by the media interviews, and it would have taken a politician [with sadly uncommon levels] of principle to stand against the tabloid fury.
So I'm pretty sure Mr Power Pose was set on being Tory leader back then.
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?
At this stage there is no way to discriminate between a flash in the pan and a lasting political reconfiguration - but the latter happens much more rarely than the former.
You can't say people must have a right to vote, and NOT have a right to vote at the same time.
We elect individuals as MPs. Therefore it is right that don't have to have a by-election when they switch their allegiance. However, given that these MPs were elected on a manifesto which promised to deliver Brexit - including leaving the Single Market and Customs Union - and they have been calling for a re-run of the referendum before the result of the 2016 vote has been implemented, I'd suggest that not calling a by-election is a tad hypocritical.
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.
After a divorce friends of the couple tend to gravitate to one side or the other and friendships weaken. At the moment, from what I gather, the vast majority of the rest of the world, not just Europe, thinks that we are way off our trolley. Apart from Trump and Putin.
Greening has to jump before her local party pushes her.
Greening was one of the main reasons the Tories held Putney in 2017, if associations from the 2 main parties continue to push deselections them TIG will only increase
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.
After a divorce friends of the couple tend to gravitate to one side or the other and friendships weaken. At the moment, from what I gather, the vast majority of the rest of the world, not just Europe, thinks that we are way off our trolley. Apart from Trump and Putin.
Trump and Putin think so as well; they just believe it suits them. They see the world in terms of competition and if we take the EU down a peg they think this helps Russia and the US. The flaws in this line of thinking don't need spelling out.
Ivan Rogers made an interesting point that this is the only trade negotiation in history where economies are seeking to diverge. Extending the thought, perhaps a full WTO breakup for a few years followed by striking FTAs might be easier for that reason ? Personally I don't think such a drastic step is worth it, but its a thought.
So the baby can come to Britain on its own? Javid's policy on this is moving from the indefensible to the ridiculous.
I'm still baffled by the reason for the Home Office writing to the woman's mother after the event, when the law stipulates that written notice has to be given. In 2017 a deprival order had to be withdrawn because notice hadn't been properly served.
Can they be that incompetent, or does Javid actually want to provoke a spat with the judiciary?
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
Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Logical arguments don't apply when it comes to politics. It seems an opinion becomes a sort of tribal loyalty, it over-rides democracy. Thus some people are still fighting the 2016 result. It cannot stand because it's wrong. It's wrong because they thought otherwise.
They miss the point that subjective views are just that. There are people who wanted a re-run within hours of the result being known. Don't you understand they're right? They always are.
You can't say people must have a right to vote, and NOT have a right to vote at the same time.
We elect individuals as MPs. Therefore it is right that don't have to have a by-election when they switch their allegiance. However, given that these MPs were elected on a manifesto which promised to deliver Brexit - including leaving the Single Market and Customs Union - and they have been calling for a re-run of the referendum before the result of the 2016 vote has been implemented, I'd suggest that not calling a by-election is a tad hypocritical.
No MP is going to resign for a by-election when some of the most important decisions this country will face are due to be taken over coming months. All this talk is simply point scoring.
But Soubry, Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston aren’t thinking of NHS spending or banning upskirting when they complain of a “shift to the right”. They aren’t taken up with teacher workloads or ivory bans, smart meters or LBGT, auto-enrollment or microbeads. No: they are consumed by a single subject: Brexit, Brexit, Brexit – about which these “moderates” are no less obsessed than, say, Bill Cash. The Government is struggling to achieve the end to which they also committed themselves – leaving the EU. Like their then fellow Tory MPs, they voted to move Article 50; they backed leaving at the 2017 election; they supported the Withdrawal Act in the lobbies. Anyone has the right to change their mind. Or the right, come to think of it, to change parties, including members of Parliament.
So if the group of three now wish to abandon their Associations, U-turn on commitments they previously made, and join a new group in the Commons, good luck to them. We should honour their record in going through the lobbies, night after night, to put in place the programme to which they now apparently object. But how can it be extremism to seek to honour the biggest electoral verdict in British political history – especially if one committed to do so oneself? As we say, twins compel attention. But don’t mistake dull, determined, dogged Theresa May, the woman who first conjured up the words “Nasty Party”, with IRA-excusing, Putin-appeasing, terror wreath-laying, Venezuela despot-friendly Jeremy Corbyn – the man who actually leads one.
So the baby can come to Britain on its own? Javid's policy on this is moving from the indefensible to the ridiculous.
I'm still baffled by the reason for the Home Office writing to the woman's mother after the event, when the law stipulates that written notice has to be given. In 2017 a deprival order had to be withdrawn because notice hadn't been properly served.
Can they be that incompetent, or does Javid actually want to provoke a spat with the judiciary?
According to Newsthump there's been a relevant academic study
'Teenagers are too immature to make reasoned decisions “except when it comes to ISIS”, confirms study"
You can't say people must have a right to vote, and NOT have a right to vote at the same time.
We elect individuals as MPs. Therefore it is right that don't have to have a by-election when they switch their allegiance. However, given that these MPs were elected on a manifesto which promised to deliver Brexit - including leaving the Single Market and Customs Union - and they have been calling for a re-run of the referendum before the result of the 2016 vote has been implemented, I'd suggest that not calling a by-election is a tad hypocritical.
No MP is going to resign for a by-election when some of the most important decisions this country will face are due to be taken over coming months. All this talk is simply point scoring.
Convenient timing, I would suggest. Anyway, once the dust has settled I suspect we'll be getting a GE.
Presumably this was before he decided that being Tory leader was the only thing that mattered to him.
Well, it was also before the woman in question gave unrepentant media interviews to all and sundry.
It's possible that there have been some managed returns of former ISIS supporters that have occurred without this media attention, and I should at least welcome Javid not choosing to make a big media issue out of those cases by his own actions (in contrast to Williamson with the aircraft carrier).
In this case Javid had the issue thrown into his in-tray by the media interviews, and it would have taken a politician [with sadly uncommon levels] of principle to stand against the tabloid fury.
So I'm pretty sure Mr Power Pose was set on being Tory leader back then.
The Reg Kray factor. While it might be true that the Establishment had determined to keep The Twins banged up forever, perhaps due to Ronnie's involvement with Lord Boothby, it is clear that any chance of parole was sabotaged by Reg's frequent declarations that they were doing the public a favour by killing villains.
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.
Just not by these people.....
Currently its a shell; we'll have to see what it becomes. What it wants for the most is some high profile charisma and experience. If someone like Kendall or Greening comes across, things start to change.
So the baby can come to Britain on its own? Javid's policy on this is moving from the indefensible to the ridiculous.
I'm still baffled by the reason for the Home Office writing to the woman's mother after the event, when the law stipulates that written notice has to be given. In 2017 a deprival order had to be withdrawn because notice hadn't been properly served.
Can they be that incompetent, or does Javid actually want to provoke a spat with the judiciary?
You can't say people must have a right to vote, and NOT have a right to vote at the same time.
We elect individuals as MPs. Therefore it is right that don't have to have a by-election when they switch their allegiance. However, given that these MPs were elected on a manifesto which promised to deliver Brexit - including leaving the Single Market and Customs Union - and they have been calling for a re-run of the referendum before the result of the 2016 vote has been implemented, I'd suggest that not calling a by-election is a tad hypocritical.
No MP is going to resign for a by-election when some of the most important decisions this country will face are due to be taken over coming months. All this talk is simply point scoring.
Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
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 to leave the party.
Grieve is a Conservative,.
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.
As I say, Sajid knows his constituency.
It does seem counterintuitive that the UK won't allow the thousands of people living in shocking conditions in Calais desperate to come but are obliged to take someone who had no desire whatever to be here. If we were a more compassionate society these sort of things wouldn't jar so much
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.
And the discussions 'in principle' with the Argentines over some sort of joint sovereignty. There was a Parliamentary row in IIRC, late 1981, when it came out, led by Bernard Braine (Cons) and Peter Shore (Lab) over what our diplomats appeared to be up to.
If it gets invaded again the autopsy won't be so mild because Britain won't be getting it back now it's got a 8,500ft runway.
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?)
Certainly if it's common ground that people shouldn't be made stateless, and if a third party were asked to adjudicate on which of the two countries she's a citizen of should be forced to accept her, it's difficult to see on what grounds they could choose Bangladesh.
Mr. Chris, might be like Balls and the lady whose name I've forgotten (the box-ticker) whom he removed from her post, which received public approval but broke the rules, leading to her getting compensation.
Javid might not be displeased to be seen to be 'tough on terror'.
It's interesting how one side wants by-elections but not a second referendum, and the other the reverse. And a third grouping wants a general election.
So the baby can come to Britain on its own? Javid's policy on this is moving from the indefensible to the ridiculous.
I'm still baffled by the reason for the Home Office writing to the woman's mother after the event, when the law stipulates that written notice has to be given. In 2017 a deprival order had to be withdrawn because notice hadn't been properly served.
Can they be that incompetent, or does Javid actually want to provoke a spat with the judiciary?
Well - they didn't have her address. But if she appeals, she will I believe have to say where she is.
So it's conceivable this one could be struck down and a corrected version issued a few days later in the proper form, because she appealed.
You can't say people must have a right to vote, and NOT have a right to vote at the same time.
We elect individuals as MPs. Therefore it is right that don't have to have a by-election when they switch their allegiance. However, given that these MPs were elected on a manifesto which promised to deliver Brexit - including leaving the Single Market and Customs Union - and they have been calling for a re-run of the referendum before the result of the 2016 vote has been implemented, I'd suggest that not calling a by-election is a tad hypocritical.
No MP is going to resign for a by-election when some of the most important decisions this country will face are due to be taken over coming months. All this talk is simply point scoring.
Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
It's interesting how one side wants by-elections but not a second referendum, and the other the reverse. And a third grouping wants a general election.
"Being 'em on! I'd prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around!" - Han Solo, 1977
Mr. Chris, might be like Balls and the lady whose name I've forgotten (the box-ticker) whom he removed from her post, which received public approval but broke the rules, leading to her getting compensation.
Javid might not be displeased to be seen to be 'tough on terror'.
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.
If only Shamima's parents had chosen to send her to the right school, all this unpleasantness could have been avoided.
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.
"feels no loyalty to Britain" so what? She is British. Or was.
It's interesting how one side wants by-elections but not a second referendum, and the other the reverse. And a third grouping wants a general election.
You can't say people must have a right to vote, and NOT have a right to vote at the same time.
We elect individuals as MPs. Therefore it is right that don't have to have a by-election when they switch their allegiance. However, given that these MPs were elected on a manifesto which promised to deliver Brexit - including leaving the Single Market and Customs Union - and they have been calling for a re-run of the referendum before the result of the 2016 vote has been implemented, I'd suggest that not calling a by-election is a tad hypocritical.
No MP is going to resign for a by-election when some of the most important decisions this country will face are due to be taken over coming months. All this talk is simply point scoring.
Despite their obvious Kippery, Carswell and Reckless at least had the courage to resign their seats and trigger by-elections when they defected.
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.
Nick, I was under the impression you were friends with her. What is it about her that you don’t like?
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.”
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.
If only Shamima's parents had chosen to send her to the right school, all this unpleasantness could have been avoided.
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?)
Certainly if it's common ground that people shouldn't be made stateless, and if a third party were asked to adjudicate on which of the two countries she's a citizen of should be forced to accept her, it's difficult to see on what grounds they could choose Bangladesh.
An analogy might be throwing slugs over your wall into the neighbour's garden, rather than dealing with them yourself. It's simply a refusal to take responsibility for a problem.
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.
If only Shamima's parents had chosen to send her to the right school, all this unpleasantness could have been avoided.
She could then have had her cake and Eton it too.
I'll get my coat.
Why don't you just keep your coat on, and save some time?
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.
Nick, I was under the impression you were friends with her. What is it about her that you don’t like?
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.
Not to mention that after the Falklands, the government resumed cutting the navy, leading to John Nott's famous walk-out.
Mr. Chris, might be like Balls and the lady whose name I've forgotten (the box-ticker) whom he removed from her post, which received public approval but broke the rules, leading to her getting compensation.
Javid might not be displeased to be seen to be 'tough on terror'.
That was what I was wondering. But if it wasn't incompetence on the part of civil servants, presumably that would involve him overruling advice that he wasn't complying with the law. That seems a very risky thing to do.
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?)
Certainly if it's common ground that people shouldn't be made stateless, and if a third party were asked to adjudicate on which of the two countries she's a citizen of should be forced to accept her, it's difficult to see on what grounds they could choose Bangladesh.
An analogy might be throwing slugs over your wall into the neighbour's garden, rather than dealing with them yourself. It's simply a refusal to take responsibility for a problem.
You can't say people must have a right to vote, and NOT have a right to vote at the same time.
We elect individuals as MPs. Therefore it is right that don't have to have a by-election when they switch their allegiance. However, given that these MPs were elected on a manifesto which promised to deliver Brexit - including leaving the Single Market and Customs Union - and they have been calling for a re-run of the referendum before the result of the 2016 vote has been implemented, I'd suggest that not calling a by-election is a tad hypocritical.
Of course it is. But we are where we are. We can't make them so we need to deal with the hand that is dealt. From May's perspective this is all about which way the Tiggers bounce if the choice comes down to deal or no deal. You'd like to think they would bounce deal in which case this might be a favourable development for her whatever the superficial appearance.
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.
I'm far more sympathetic to Boles, Letwin, Spelman's position than Grieve. For all his intellect, Grieve's Brexit strategy is very self fulfilling prophecy.
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.
You feel that the right to retain citizenship should be decided on the basis of our subjective view of whether mum feels loyalty to the country? That is exactly the sort of argument that the Chinese government uses to strip citizenship from people they don't like.
Come on - I get that what he's doing is popular and appeals to a sense of justifiable revenge for ISIS atrocities. But it's also undermining the security that most of us feel in our right to remain citizens of the country where we were born, regardless of our opinions or what the current government thinks of our opinions.
And it's almost certainly unlawful and will get overturned in due course, after Mr Javid's leadership ambitions have been satisfied.
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.
Not to mention that after the Falklands, the government resumed cutting the navy, leading to John Nott's famous walk-out.
Its yet another issue where the myth of Thatcher (Iron Lady) is different to reality (defence cuts).
Greening has to jump before her local party pushes her.
Greening was one of the main reasons the Tories held Putney in 2017, if associations from the 2 main parties continue to push deselections them TIG will only increase
She won't hold Putney at the next election so I'm not sure the Tories will be too fussed. You can't find those demographics even with a good candidate.
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.
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.
"feels no loyalty to Britain" so what? She is British. Or was.
Javid has got this wrong big time here.
Fancy a bet on whether he wins the presumably inevitable court case involving the mother?
Greening has to jump before her local party pushes her.
Greening was one of the main reasons the Tories held Putney in 2017, if associations from the 2 main parties continue to push deselections them TIG will only increase
She won't hold Putney at the next election so I'm not sure the Tories will be too fussed. You can't find those demographics even with a good candidate.
Not as a Tory candidate in London, for sure. She actually stands more chance with the new lot, if they get something off the ground.
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.
I'm far more sympathetic to Boles, Letwin, Spelman's position than Grieve. For all his intellect, Grieve's Brexit strategy is very self fulfilling prophecy.
Grieve is as fanatical as the ERG nutters only from the opposite side.
'O would some power the gift to give us to see ourselves as others see us'
I barely recognised that anglicised version. The original is better and I thought you'd like the next couple of lines:
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as others see us! It wad frae monie a blunder free us, An' foolish notion.”
It does work much better in the original but I though it might JUST be incomprehensible to anyone who hadn't heard it before! (moreso with the extra two lines)
So the baby can come to Britain on its own? Javid's policy on this is moving from the indefensible to the ridiculous.
I'm still baffled by the reason for the Home Office writing to the woman's mother after the event, when the law stipulates that written notice has to be given. In 2017 a deprival order had to be withdrawn because notice hadn't been properly served.
Can they be that incompetent, or does Javid actually want to provoke a spat with the judiciary?
Well - they didn't have her address. But if she appeals, she will I believe have to say where she is.
So it's conceivable this one could be struck down and a corrected version issued a few days later in the proper form, because she appealed.
The law doesn't seem to allow for a situation in which written notice can't be given. Apparently the best the Home Office could do was to write to her mother and ask her to pass the information on. But they wrote to her mother after the event, not before.
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.
I'm far more sympathetic to Boles, Letwin, Spelman's position than Grieve. For all his intellect, Grieve's Brexit strategy is very self fulfilling prophecy.
Soubs has changed her twitter header pic. Now shows march for 2nd vote.
But she wont let the voters of Broxtowe have a second on her.
We elect MPs not parties. She's just following Churchill's example when he switched parties on 2 occasions. When people like Carswell, Davis and Goldsmith have created by-elections it has been driven as much by wanting to draw attention to themselves rather than principle. Carswell was probably the most principled but his by election was as much about getting UKIP in the limelight as anything else.
The Tiggers would be best to hang on for its defections until Monday morning (leaked Sunday for paper exclusives). They command the news cycle currently so don’t need another hit until at least the weekend.
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?)
Certainly if it's common ground that people shouldn't be made stateless, and if a third party were asked to adjudicate on which of the two countries she's a citizen of should be forced to accept her, it's difficult to see on what grounds they could choose Bangladesh.
An analogy might be throwing slugs over your wall into the neighbour's garden, rather than dealing with them yourself. It's simply a refusal to take responsibility for a problem.
One massacres slugs.
It's snails in one of A. P. Herbert's Albert Haddock episodes. The case revolves around the question of whether snails are wild and ferocious beasts.
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. Thove 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.
"feels no loyalty to Britain" so what? She is British. Or was.
Javid has got this wrong big time here.
Fancy a bet on whether he wins the presumably inevitable court case involving the mother?
I couldn't give a flying fuck what court case he wins or not - he is wrong to do so.
"Borrowing (public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks) in January 2019 was in surplus by £14.9 billion, a £5.6 billion greater surplus than in January 2018; this was the largest January surplus on record (records began in 1993)."
"Borrowing in the current financial year-to-date (April 2018 to January 2019) (YTD) was £21.2 billion, £18.5 billion less than in the same period last year; the lowest YTD for 17 years (since 2001)."
No one is going to persuade me that we generated that much extra tax with growth of 1.2% for the year. It's just not possible.
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.
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.”
The Exchequer has just arguably its best January ever*
*there are some timing effects January and February - we shall see
I looked at the ONS data and I realised for the first time that borrowing for 2017 and 2018 was below the pre-crash levels in 2003-7. I still reckon we need to run a surplus to to pay some of the debt back, but it looks like Brexit might prevent that.
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.
And the discussions 'in principle' with the Argentines over some sort of joint sovereignty. There was a Parliamentary row in IIRC, late 1981, when it came out, led by Bernard Braine (Cons) and Peter Shore (Lab) over what our diplomats appeared to be up to.
If it gets invaded again the autopsy won't be so mild because Britain won't be getting it back now it's got a 8,500ft runway.
The way they got hold of that runway the first time was one of the greatest military operations of all time though!
It's interesting how one side wants by-elections but not a second referendum, and the other the reverse. And a third grouping wants a general election.
It's almost as though principle has nothing to do with these various demands, and they are merely a desire to achieve a favourable outcome.
It's interesting how one side wants by-elections but not a second referendum, and the other the reverse. And a third grouping wants a general election.
"Being 'em on! I'd prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around!" - Han Solo, 1977
"Hokey politics and ancient precedents are no match for a good constituency at your side, kid" - the Right Honorable Han Solo, PC, MP for Corellia 0 BBY
Comments
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/la-plus-grosse-usine-de-nutella-au-monde-a-l-arret-en-raison-d-un-defaut-de-qualite-20190221
It's possible that there have been some managed returns of former ISIS supporters that have occurred without this media attention, and I should at least welcome Javid not choosing to make a big media issue out of those cases by his own actions (in contrast to Williamson with the aircraft carrier).
In this case Javid had the issue thrown into his in-tray by the media interviews, and it would have taken a politician [with sadly uncommon levels] of principle to stand against the tabloid fury.
So I'm pretty sure Mr Power Pose was set on being Tory leader back then.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42826028
a shortage might bring down governments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47313172
Personally I don't think such a drastic step is worth it, but its a thought.
Can they be that incompetent, or does Javid actually want to provoke a spat with the judiciary?
Are the TIG too scared to trigger by-elections? Are they too attached to their Parliamentary salaries and perks to do the honourable thing?
Logical arguments don't apply when it comes to politics. It seems an opinion becomes a sort of tribal loyalty, it over-rides democracy. Thus some people are still fighting the 2016 result. It cannot stand because it's wrong. It's wrong because they thought otherwise.
They miss the point that subjective views are just that. There are people who wanted a re-run within hours of the result being known. Don't you understand they're right? They always are.
But Soubry, Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston aren’t thinking of NHS spending or banning upskirting when they complain of a “shift to the right”. They aren’t taken up with teacher workloads or ivory bans, smart meters or LBGT, auto-enrollment or microbeads. No: they are consumed by a single subject: Brexit, Brexit, Brexit – about which these “moderates” are no less obsessed than, say, Bill Cash. The Government is struggling to achieve the end to which they also committed themselves – leaving the EU. Like their then fellow Tory MPs, they voted to move Article 50; they backed leaving at the 2017 election; they supported the Withdrawal Act in the lobbies. Anyone has the right to change their mind. Or the right, come to think of it, to change parties, including members of Parliament.
So if the group of three now wish to abandon their Associations, U-turn on commitments they previously made, and join a new group in the Commons, good luck to them. We should honour their record in going through the lobbies, night after night, to put in place the programme to which they now apparently object. But how can it be extremism to seek to honour the biggest electoral verdict in British political history – especially if one committed to do so oneself? As we say, twins compel attention. But don’t mistake dull, determined, dogged Theresa May, the woman who first conjured up the words “Nasty Party”, with IRA-excusing, Putin-appeasing, terror wreath-laying, Venezuela despot-friendly Jeremy Corbyn – the man who actually leads one.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2019/02/the-defectors-are-wrong-the-conservatives-arent-shifting-to-the-right-they-are-mired-in-the-mixed-middle.html
'Teenagers are too immature to make reasoned decisions “except when it comes to ISIS”, confirms study"
https://newsthump.com/2019/02/20/teenagers-are-too-immature-to-make-reasoned-decisions-except-when-it-comes-to-isis-confirms-study/
Javid might not be displeased to be seen to be 'tough on terror'.
' "I’m 29 and I’m in £60k of credit card debt…"
Liam began to spiral into debt after taking on an unpaid internship .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/fcd81d56-376d-4dc4-a932-086fae147d33
So it's conceivable this one could be struck down and a corrected version issued a few days later in the proper form, because she appealed.
The Exchequer has just arguably its best January ever*
*there are some timing effects January and February - we shall see
Javid has got this wrong big time here.
“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion.”
I'll get my coat.
It's simply a refusal to take responsibility for a problem.
But its hypocritical to support a second referendum but not a resignation by-election.
Come on - I get that what he's doing is popular and appeals to a sense of justifiable revenge for ISIS atrocities. But it's also undermining the security that most of us feel in our right to remain citizens of the country where we were born, regardless of our opinions or what the current government thinks of our opinions.
And it's almost certainly unlawful and will get overturned in due course, after Mr Javid's leadership ambitions have been satisfied.
NEW THREAD
Needs factoring into the betting for the 2022 - jam is certainly coming tomorrow.
Amusing for the departing Triggers that austerity will be relaxed as they boo and hiss from the opposition benches.
"Borrowing (public sector net borrowing excluding public sector banks) in January 2019 was in surplus by £14.9 billion, a £5.6 billion greater surplus than in January 2018; this was the largest January surplus on record (records began in 1993)."
"Borrowing in the current financial year-to-date (April 2018 to January 2019) (YTD) was £21.2 billion, £18.5 billion less than in the same period last year; the lowest YTD for 17 years (since 2001)."
No one is going to persuade me that we generated that much extra tax with growth of 1.2% for the year. It's just not possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck
youtube.com/watch?v=PBJ99bIhAVk