Political science tends to agree that big events matter. When an issue is salient and a symbolically damaging event occurs that challenges the government’s competence they can lose their ownership of an issue. The Tories with economic competence after Black Friday is a good example. If there is a no deal outcome, something big and symbolic could sink the Tories remaining economic credibility.
I think sometimes, maybe once in a generation, an event runs counterintuitive to logic. The Falklands war was one of these events where you would think a Government that allows an invasion of part of its territory would get utterly annihilated, then add into the equation an economy rocked by a recession that made over 3 million unemployed. How did the Tories get away with it in the 1980s!
I am starting to think Brexit (I oppose and would rather stay in the EU), even a No Deal might be the same sort of event that uncouples the normal cycle of politics. When you add in the Labour split and FPTP a range of unlikely prospects beckon!
But had the Falklands war become a much more extended conlict that dragged on into 1983 with mounting losses and casualty lists . Thatcher would almost certainly have paid a very heavy price.
The Falklands War was a damn close run thing. Supply lines were almost at breaking point. If there had been battle hardened troops who dug in and fought then history could have been very different.
I always remember in the 1980s it was received wisdom by political commentators that 3 million+ unemployed would mean the Tories would not win again. Then 1983 came along and the Tories got in again with an increased majority in a landslide, 3 million were still out of work and 1987 occurred with a landslide Tory majority (Not as great as 1983 but a pretty sound victory all the same). The thing about Brexit is the older age groups who tended to support Brexit also support the Tories, so even in a No Deal it is not a forgone conclusion that the Tories will suffer. I say this as someone who opposes Brexit.
I agree but I suppose it depends on who the No Deal fallout affects and its distribution over the UK as a whole. If for instance the worst economic blow hits Labour seats or industries in Labour inclined areas like in the 1980s, then the Tories might be relatively unscathed.
Older voters are less likely to work, so they are likely to stick with Brexit and the Tories unless the UK enters a depression. I suspect London, the Home Counties and the South East in general might feel little of the pain, which is good for Tory prospects.
I doubt even if things are bad Labour has the potential to pick up many seats outside London in the Tory shires. The LD or Tig might do better at picking up seats in usually reliable Tory areas but they are held back due to their ability to target more than a handful of seats at anyone time in a serious and sustainable way.
I strongly suspect that the effect of the Falklands victory in 1982 was to bestow credibility on the entire range of Thatcher's policies for several years thereafter. Many who had been critical of her economic policies in 1980/1981 became much more inclined to give her the benefit of the doubts previously held , and it was this indirect spinoff which propelled her to the 1983 landslide win. Had it not been for the Falkands conflict the 3 million unemployed would likely have proved a much heavier burden for Thatcher in seeking a second term.
I think the Tory press were likely to be the main reason for her Falklands success (In terms of the people back home being propelled into a nationalistic fervour). Looking back on it I am surprised the Argentine invasion was not a death knell to the Thatcher Government as it showed some serious ineptness. Defence was a big deal in 1983 in that Nuclear weapons were a major theme of that campaign.
The military success effectively erased the concerns re-the original invasion. The recent Falklands conflict probably contributed to Defence being a prominent issue in 1983. It was a good deal less so in 1987.
Political science tends to agree that big events matter. When an issue is salient and a symbolically damaging event occurs that challenges the government’s competence they can lose their ownership of an issue. The Tories with economic competence after Black Friday is a good example. If there is a no deal outcome, something big and symbolic could sink the Tories remaining economic credibility.
I think sometimes, maybe once in a generation, an event runs counterintuitive to logic. The Falklands war was one of these events where you would think a Government that allows an invasion of part of its territory would get utterly annihilated, then add into the equation an economy rocked by a recession that made over 3 million unemployed. How did the Tories get away with it in the 1980s!
I am starting to think Brexit (I oppose and would rather stay in the EU), even a No Deal might be the same sort of event that uncouples the normal cycle of politics. When you add in the Labour split and FPTP a range of unlikely prospects beckon!
But had the Falklands war become a much more extended conlict that dragged on into 1983 with mounting losses and casualty lists . Thatcher would almost certainly have paid a very heavy price.
The Falklands War was a damn close run thing. Supply lines were almost at breaking point. If there had been battle hardened troops who dug in and fought then history could have been very different.
Yes - and how would public opinion here have responded to casualties amounting to a couple of thousand - rather than two hundred and fifty.
I know you do not want it to go through but I am relaxed now no deal is going nowhere
You've been saying this for months as well as grasping every half-positive headline about May's Deal rather like a man in the water grasps for a lifebelt.
Nothing has changed since Christmas - either the Deal is ratified or we leave without a Deal. There's talk of an extension but it's hard to see your Party agreeing to 24 months of remaining in the EU hoping to come up with some words to satisfy Arlene Foster.
Parliament voting against No Deal is meaningless - if nothing has been agreed, it remains the default position as of four weeks tonight.
The question now is what May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th.
You do seem to want to be argumentative and having a go when I only act as a messenger on the headline in a remain supporting paper
You seem to think the HOC is going to allow no deal.
TM had said it would only be a short extension, the EU want it concluded by June, and I do not support anything like two years
My best guess is TM deal passes and tbe EU grants a short extension but other opinions are available
I know you do not want it to go through but I am relaxed now no deal is going nowhere
You've been saying this for months as well as grasping every half-positive headline about May's Deal rather like a man in the water grasps for a lifebelt.
Nothing has changed since Christmas - either the Deal is ratified or we leave without a Deal. There's talk of an extension but it's hard to see your Party agreeing to 24 months of remaining in the EU hoping to come up with some words to satisfy Arlene Foster.
Parliament voting against No Deal is meaningless - if nothing has been agreed, it remains the default position as of four weeks tonight.
The question now is what May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th.
Her deal will be ratified but subject to a 2nd Referendum... which could go either way.
I know you do not want it to go through but I am relaxed now no deal is going nowhere
You've been saying this for months as well as grasping every half-positive headline about May's Deal rather like a man in the water grasps for a lifebelt.
Nothing has changed since Christmas - either the Deal is ratified or we leave without a Deal. There's talk of an extension but it's hard to see your Party agreeing to 24 months of remaining in the EU hoping to come up with some words to satisfy Arlene Foster.
Parliament voting against No Deal is meaningless - if nothing has been agreed, it remains the default position as of four weeks tonight.
The question now is what May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th.
What May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th? She has already said that Parliament will vote on no-deal (!) on the 13th. But, as you say, even if no-deal is rejected it hasn't then gone away. It's still the default on the 14th when there would be a vote for an extension of time under article 50.
But had the Falklands war become a much more extended conlict that dragged on into 1983 with mounting losses and casualty lists . Thatcher would almost certainly have paid a very heavy price.
There is no way the Falklands could have become an extended conflict as the British simply lacked the resources to make it one. We only just won it and that was by blind luck. Galahad, Bedivere and Tristam were all hit by bombs that failed to explode. If those six bombs had been correctly fused for low level deployment that would have been the end of the conflict. So it could have been a tragic loss with huge casualties by late May 82 but the task force was on its last legs by then so it could not have dragged on much longer.
Well, new favourite politician for me. It's been Michael Gove for some time but no longer. Been tracking a guy for a few months, a guy who's been growing on me, creeping up on the rails as it were, and he has now got there. He's number one. Good brain, heart of gold, always on the verge of exploding but somehow not quite doing so. Barry Gardiner. If he's on I drop everything.
Indeed - which was why it proved to be of great benefit to her. It was far from inevitable though - had a few more of the Argentinian shells actually exploded the military outcome might have been rather different.
Or if the Argentinians had waited a few months. Weren't they due a load of new exocerts? And the HMS Hermes would have been decommissioned by then?
I know you do not want it to go through but I am relaxed now no deal is going nowhere
You've been saying this for months as well as grasping every half-positive headline about May's Deal rather like a man in the water grasps for a lifebelt.
Nothing has changed since Christmas - either the Deal is ratified or we leave without a Deal. There's talk of an extension but it's hard to see your Party agreeing to 24 months of remaining in the EU hoping to come up with some words to satisfy Arlene Foster.
Parliament voting against No Deal is meaningless - if nothing has been agreed, it remains the default position as of four weeks tonight.
The question now is what May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th.
Her deal will be ratified but subject to a 2nd Referendum... which could go either way.
Maybe but maybe not. There is not a majority for a referendum at present in the HOC
Indeed - which was why it proved to be of great benefit to her. It was far from inevitable though - had a few more of the Argentinian shells actually exploded the military outcome might have been rather different.
Or if the Argentinians had waited a few months. Weren't they due a load of new exocerts? And the HMS Hermes would have been out of action by then?
There would have been no new Exocets for the forseeable future. MI6 and the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure made sure of that.
Indeed - which was why it proved to be of great benefit to her. It was far from inevitable though - had a few more of the Argentinian shells actually exploded the military outcome might have been rather different.
Or if the Argentinians had waited a few months. Weren't they due a load of new exocerts? And the HMS Hermes would have been out of action by then?
There would have been no new Exocets for the forseeable future. MI6 and the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure made sure of that.
I know you do not want it to go through but I am relaxed now no deal is going nowhere
You've been saying this for months as well as grasping every half-positive headline about May's Deal rather like a man in the water grasps for a lifebelt.
Nothing has changed since Christmas - either the Deal is ratified or we leave without a Deal. There's talk of an extension but it's hard to see your Party agreeing to 24 months of remaining in the EU hoping to come up with some words to satisfy Arlene Foster.
Parliament voting against No Deal is meaningless - if nothing has been agreed, it remains the default position as of four weeks tonight.
The question now is what May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th.
Her deal will be ratified but subject to a 2nd Referendum... which could go either way.
Maybe but maybe not. There is not a majority for a referendum at present in the HOC
But if a referendum is the only way to get labour to abstain?
Indeed - which was why it proved to be of great benefit to her. It was far from inevitable though - had a few more of the Argentinian shells actually exploded the military outcome might have been rather different.
Or if the Argentinians had waited a few months. Weren't they due a load of new exocerts? And the HMS Hermes would have been out of action by then?
There would have been no new Exocets for the forseeable future. MI6 and the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure made sure of that.
And if the US had slow timed the requested Sidewinders ?
I know you do not want it to go through but I am relaxed now no deal is going nowhere
You've been saying this for months as well as grasping every half-positive headline about May's Deal rather like a man in the water grasps for a lifebelt.
Nothing has changed since Christmas - either the Deal is ratified or we leave without a Deal. There's talk of an extension but it's hard to see your Party agreeing to 24 months of remaining in the EU hoping to come up with some words to satisfy Arlene Foster.
Parliament voting against No Deal is meaningless - if nothing has been agreed, it remains the default position as of four weeks tonight.
The question now is what May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th.
Her deal will be ratified but subject to a 2nd Referendum... which could go either way.
Maybe but maybe not. There is not a majority for a referendum at present in the HOC
But if a referendum is the only way to get labour to abstain?
The only way TM deal passes is with a good number of labour mps from leave voting areas supporting it and others considering the other options are far worse
I always tend toward thinking a lot less will happen than seems like it should happen, but I honestly don't see how a further internal confrontation can be avoided here. Whether he is or not Watson is perceived as trying to take down Corbyn by plenty of Labour backers, and I don't care how genial Corbyn is a political party leader has to do something if his deputy is coming after him, or a lot of people think he is, especially when there's also a row between him and the General Secretary of the party. The Tories are hardly a bastion of good discipline and internal governance, the ERG are practically their own party, but this Labour squabble surely cannot keep up like this?
I always tend toward thinking a lot less will happen that seems like it should happen, but I honestly don't see how a further internal confrontation can be avoided here. Whether he is or not Watson is perceived as trying to take down Corbyn by plenty of Labour backers, and I don't care how genial Corbyn is a political party leader has to do something if his deputy is coming after him, or a lot of people think he is, especially when there's also a row between him and the General Secretary of the party. The Tories are hardly a bastion of good discipline and internal governance, the ERG are practically their own party, but this Labour squabble surely cannot keep up like this?
Scrapheap - there's a good rail service from central Oxford to Paddington. There's also a fast bus service that zips along the M40 -> A40, that wouldn't be much slower than driving yourself.
Thank you - so maybe bus service is the way to go once I find the nearest stop to Oxford?
The Chiltern line train goes to Marylebone: if you are really lucky you might even get one that stops at Wembley.
Brilliant... Found one in the morning Cheers all.. Now to get the family day pass....
I know you do not want it to go through but I am relaxed now no deal is going nowhere
You've been saying this for months as well as grasping every half-positive headline about May's Deal rather like a man in the water grasps for a lifebelt.
Nothing has changed since Christmas - either the Deal is ratified or we leave without a Deal. There's talk of an extension but it's hard to see your Party agreeing to 24 months of remaining in the EU hoping to come up with some words to satisfy Arlene Foster.
Parliament voting against No Deal is meaningless - if nothing has been agreed, it remains the default position as of four weeks tonight.
The question now is what May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th.
What May will do if her WA is voted down again on March 12th? She has already said that Parliament will vote on no-deal (!) on the 13th. But, as you say, even if no-deal is rejected it hasn't then gone away. It's still the default on the 14th when there would be a vote for an extension of time under article 50.
Logically if Parliament votes to rule out no-deal, but won't agree to the deal, then the only course of action left is revoke.
It'd be interesting to work out what exactly has to be done for each of outcomes, and when they must be done by.
Chris Grayling should be the bigger man, hold his hands up and take responsibility for his actions.
I completely agree and save embarrassing his close friend, TM
If he quits who does she replace him with? She will end up recycling more ex-ministers who quit over Brexit! I think she is waiting for Brexit to be over and then she will fire those who prove not to be up to the job or she might even reshuffle herself but I doubt that is really a very likely prospect. PM's need to be prised out of power unless an election does not go their way!
Chris Grayling should be the bigger man, hold his hands up and take responsibility for his actions.
I completely agree and save embarrassing his close friend, TM
If he quits who does she replace him with? She will end up recycling more ex-ministers who quit over Brexit! I think she is waiting for Brexit to be over and then she will fire those who prove not to be up to the job or she might even reshuffle herself but I doubt that is really a very likely prospect. PM's need to be prised out of power unless an election does not go their way!
I don't think Trump will do very well in front of investigators, if it gets to a Clinton style of investigation. Clinton was brilliant at getting his way out of the Lewinsky investigation. The use of definitions ("Is" and "Sexual Relations") to get out of the crosshairs was masterful. I suspect if Trump was accused of having an affair he would just say "Yeah I fucked her!" I suspect Trump is so tarnished and the fact he does not care would make his investigation different to anything we have seen before.
Chris Grayling should be the bigger man, hold his hands up and take responsibility for his actions.
I completely agree and save embarrassing his close friend, TM
If he quits who does she replace him with? She will end up recycling more ex-ministers who quit over Brexit! I think she is waiting for Brexit to be over and then she will fire those who prove not to be up to the job or she might even reshuffle herself but I doubt that is really a very likely prospect. PM's need to be prised out of power unless an election does not go their way!
One of his departmental ministers... picked at random if need be. Couldn’t be worse.
Indeed - which was why it proved to be of great benefit to her. It was far from inevitable though - had a few more of the Argentinian shells actually exploded the military outcome might have been rather different.
Or if the Argentinians had waited a few months. Weren't they due a load of new exocerts? And the HMS Hermes would have been out of action by then?
There would have been no new Exocets for the forseeable future. MI6 and the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure made sure of that.
And if the US had slow timed the requested Sidewinders ?
We would have probably used the R550 Magic which had already been integrated on to the Harrier for the Indian Navy and used the same rail as the AIM-9.
Chris Grayling should be the bigger man, hold his hands up and take responsibility for his actions.
I completely agree and save embarrassing his close friend, TM
If he quits who does she replace him with? She will end up recycling more ex-ministers who quit over Brexit! I think she is waiting for Brexit to be over and then she will fire those who prove not to be up to the job or she might even reshuffle herself but I doubt that is really a very likely prospect. PM's need to be prised out of power unless an election does not go their way!
Just promote Jesse Norman and the lower ministers up the chain then find some loyal backbencher (Hey there must be one left !) to fill up the bag carrier role.
You do seem to want to be argumentative and having a go when I only act as a messenger on the headline in a remain supporting paper
You seem to think the HOC is going to allow no deal.
TM had said it would only be a short extension, the EU want it concluded by June, and I do not support anything like two years
My best guess is TM deal passes and tbe EU grants a short extension but other opinions are available
Yes, I am angry and I've a right to be given the appalling shambles of a Government you support and the millions, if not tens of millions companies, councils and Government itself has been forced to spend in a panicked preparation for a No Deal.
Presumably IF the WDA passes the apologists will be on here hailing it as a political triumph and lauding May to the skies and telling us all what a great Prime Minister she is and how she should lead the Conservatives into the next GE.
Now, let's say it doesn't pass - we all know the line. It will be the fault of the Opposition, the ERG, the Martians, the DUP, anyone and everyone else. It won't be May's fault for putting us in the situation - it won't be the fault of her negotiating team for being so inept and it won't be the fault of her Government for failing to anticipate the possibility of no agreement and not planning accordingly.
I always remember in the 1980s it was received wisdom by political commentators that 3 million+ unemployed would mean the Tories would not win again. Then 1983 came along and the Tories got in again with an increased majority in a landslide, 3 million were still out of work and 1987 occurred with a landslide Tory majority (Not as great as 1983 but a pretty sound victory all the same). The thing about Brexit is the older age groups who tended to support Brexit also support the Tories, so even in a No Deal it is not a forgone conclusion that the Tories will suffer. I say this as someone who opposes Brexit.
In addition, people are very bad at predicting how they themselves will react to events.
Re the Falklands discussion, at the outset, public opinion was against suffering casualties. Once casualties began to be suffered, public opinion hardened in favour of the conflict.
I don't think Trump will do very well in front of investigators, if it gets to a Clinton style of investigation. Clinton was brilliant at getting his way out of the Lewinsky investigation. The use of definitions ("Is" and "Sexual Relations") to get out of the crosshairs was masterful. I suspect if Trump was accused of having an affair he would just say "Yeah I fucked her!" I suspect Trump is so tarnished and the fact he does not care would make his investigation different to anything we have seen before.
If we paid Grayling to sit in an office burning fivers, it would have cost the taxpayer less than making him Secretary of State for anything
You remind me of Roy Massey, who once told me: 'If you want to waste money, dig a hole and throw five pound notes in it. But whatever you do, don't spend another penny on that organ.'
I don't know why I was thinking of useless organs in the context of Grayling.
You do seem to want to be argumentative and having a go when I only act as a messenger on the headline in a remain supporting paper
You seem to think the HOC is going to allow no deal.
TM had said it would only be a short extension, the EU want it concluded by June, and I do not support anything like two years
My best guess is TM deal passes and tbe EU grants a short extension but other opinions are available
Yes, I am angry and I've a right to be given the appalling shambles of a Government you support and the millions, if not tens of millions companies, councils and Government itself has been forced to spend in a panicked preparation for a No Deal.
Presumably IF the WDA passes the apologists will be on here hailing it as a political triumph and lauding May to the skies and telling us all what a great Prime Minister she is and how she should lead the Conservatives into the next GE.
Now, let's say it doesn't pass - we all know the line. It will be the fault of the Opposition, the ERG, the Martians, the DUP, anyone and everyone else. It won't be May's fault for putting us in the situation - it won't be the fault of her negotiating team for being so inept and it won't be the fault of her Government for failing to anticipate the possibility of no agreement and not planning accordingly.
I understand the anger on all sides but no one gets away blame free
Believe you me I am not a hard brexiteer and just want a deal to move on. TM deal is a fair compromise but if it falls then revoke or remain become more likely
Chris Grayling should be the bigger man, hold his hands up and take responsibility for his actions.
I completely agree and save embarrassing his close friend, TM
If he quits who does she replace him with? She will end up recycling more ex-ministers who quit over Brexit! I think she is waiting for Brexit to be over and then she will fire those who prove not to be up to the job or she might even reshuffle herself but I doubt that is really a very likely prospect. PM's need to be prised out of power unless an election does not go their way!
One of his departmental ministers... picked at random if need be. Couldn’t be worse.
Most teachers thought that of Gove when he replaced Balls.
Indeed - which was why it proved to be of great benefit to her. It was far from inevitable though - had a few more of the Argentinian shells actually exploded the military outcome might have been rather different.
Or if the Argentinians had waited a few months. Weren't they due a load of new exocerts? And the HMS Hermes would have been out of action by then?
There would have been no new Exocets for the forseeable future. MI6 and the Direction générale de la sécurité extérieure made sure of that.
And if the US had slow timed the requested Sidewinders ?
We would have probably used the R550 Magic which had already been integrated on to the Harrier for the Indian Navy and used the same rail as the AIM-9.
Was that the MkI - and would it have sufficed (didn’t the Argentines have it) ?
But had the Falklands war become a much more extended conlict that dragged on into 1983 with mounting losses and casualty lists . Thatcher would almost certainly have paid a very heavy price.
There is no way the Falklands could have become an extended conflict as the British simply lacked the resources to make it one. We only just won it and that was by blind luck. Galahad, Bedivere and Tristam were all hit by bombs that failed to explode. If those six bombs had been correctly fused for low level deployment that would have been the end of the conflict. So it could have been a tragic loss with huge casualties by late May 82 but the task force was on its last legs by then so it could not have dragged on much longer.
I think the thing was done once British soldiers had landed in large numbers, given the poor quality of the defenders. In order to win, the Argentians had to prevent the landings, which became very hard once they decided not to fight at sea.
You do seem to want to be argumentative and having a go when I only act as a messenger on the headline in a remain supporting paper
You seem to think the HOC is going to allow no deal.
TM had said it would only be a short extension, the EU want it concluded by June, and I do not support anything like two years
My best guess is TM deal passes and tbe EU grants a short extension but other opinions are available
Yes, I am angry and I've a right to be given the appalling shambles of a Government you support and the millions, if not tens of millions companies, councils and Government itself has been forced to spend in a panicked preparation for a No Deal.
Presumably IF the WDA passes the apologists will be on here hailing it as a political triumph and lauding May to the skies and telling us all what a great Prime Minister she is and how she should lead the Conservatives into the next GE.
Now, let's say it doesn't pass - we all know the line. It will be the fault of the Opposition, the ERG, the Martians, the DUP, anyone and everyone else. It won't be May's fault for putting us in the situation - it won't be the fault of her negotiating team for being so inept and it won't be the fault of her Government for failing to anticipate the possibility of no agreement and not planning accordingly.
Not that I'm a May apologist, but is the government preparing for no deal when it shouldn't be (your first para) or not preparing when it should ( third para)?
More generally, this is probably how things were always going to pan out. If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
Chris Grayling should be the bigger man, hold his hands up and take responsibility for his actions.
I completely agree and save embarrassing his close friend, TM
If he quits who does she replace him with? She will end up recycling more ex-ministers who quit over Brexit! I think she is waiting for Brexit to be over and then she will fire those who prove not to be up to the job or she might even reshuffle herself but I doubt that is really a very likely prospect. PM's need to be prised out of power unless an election does not go their way!
One of his departmental ministers... picked at random if need be. Couldn’t be worse.
Most teachers thought that of Gove when he replaced Balls.
You do seem to want to be argumentative and having a go when I only act as a messenger on the headline in a remain supporting paper
You seem to think the HOC is going to allow no deal.
TM had said it would only be a short extension, the EU want it concluded by June, and I do not support anything like two years
My best guess is TM deal passes and tbe EU grants a short extension but other opinions are available
Yes, I am angry and I've a right to be given the appalling shambles of a Government you support and the millions, if not tens of millions companies, councils and Government itself has been forced to spend in a panicked preparation for a No Deal.
Presumably IF the WDA passes the apologists will be on here hailing it as a political triumph and lauding May to the skies and telling us all what a great Prime Minister she is and how she should lead the Conservatives into the next GE.
Now, let's say it doesn't pass - we all know the line. It will be the fault of the Opposition, the ERG, the Martians, the DUP, anyone and everyone else. It won't be May's fault for putting us in the situation - it won't be the fault of her negotiating team for being so inept and it won't be the fault of her Government for failing to anticipate the possibility of no agreement and not planning accordingly.
Not that I'm a May apologist, but is the government preparing for no deal when it shouldn't be (your first para) or not preparing when it should ( third para)?
More generally, this is probably how things were always going to pan out. If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
I know this is an excuse Tories like to tell themselves but Labour voters voted remain at the same rate as SNP supporters and at a slightly lower rate than Lib Dem voters.
It was UKIP and Tories that won it for leave.
Edit: Not that it wouldn't be ridiculous to blame Camerons failings in the referendum on the opposition even if it didn't go against the available facts.
You do seem to want to be argumentative and having a go when I only act as a messenger on the headline in a remain supporting paper
You seem to think the HOC is going to allow no deal.
TM had said it would only be a short extension, the EU want it concluded by June, and I do not support anything like two years
My best guess is TM deal passes and tbe EU grants a short extension but other opinions are available
Yes, I am angry and I've a right to be given the appalling shambles of a Government you support and the millions, if not tens of millions companies, councils and Government itself has been forced to spend in a panicked preparation for a No Deal.
Presumably IF the WDA passes the apologists will be on here hailing it as a political triumph and lauding May to the skies and telling us all what a great Prime Minister she is and how she should lead the Conservatives into the next GE.
Now, let's say it doesn't pass - we all know the line. It will be the fault of the Opposition, the ERG, the Martians, the DUP, anyone and everyone else. It won't be May's fault for putting us in the situation - it won't be the fault of her negotiating team for being so inept and it won't be the fault of her Government for failing to anticipate the possibility of no agreement and not planning accordingly.
Not that I'm a May apologist, but is the government preparing for no deal when it shouldn't be (your first para) or not preparing when it should ( third para)?
More generally, this is probably how things were always going to pan out. If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
I know this is an excuse Tories like to tell themselves but Labour voters voted remain at the same rate as SNP supporters and at a slightly lower rate than Lib Dem voters.
It was UKIP and Tories that won it for leave.
Edit: Not that it wouldn't be ridiculous to blame Camerons failings in the referendum on the opposition even if it didn't go against the available facts.
I say blame Cameron, you say I am blaming Cameron's failings on someone else. Perhaps you are drunk?
However many Labour voters voted remain, more would have done so given adequate leadership from the top.
You do seem to want to be argumentative and having a go when I only act as a messenger on the headline in a remain supporting paper
You seem to think the HOC is going to allow no deal.
TM had said it would only be a short extension, the EU want it concluded by June, and I do not support anything like two years
My best guess is TM deal passes and tbe EU grants a short extension but other opinions are available
Yes, I am angry and I've a right to be given the appalling shambles of a Government you support and the millions, if not tens of millions companies, councils and Government itself has been forced to spend in a panicked preparation for a No Deal.
Presumably IF the WDA passes the apologists will be on here hailing it as a political triumph and lauding May to the skies and telling us all what a great Prime Minister she is and how she should lead the Conservatives into the next GE.
Now, let's say it doesn't pass - we all know the line. It will be the fault of the Opposition, the ERG, the Martians, the DUP, anyone and everyone else. It won't be May's fault for putting us in the situation - it won't be the fault of her negotiating team for being so inept and it won't be the fault of her Government for failing to anticipate the possibility of no agreement and not planning accordingly.
Not that I'm a May apologist, but is the government preparing for no deal when it shouldn't be (your first para) or not preparing when it should ( third para)?
More generally, this is probably how things were always going to pan out. If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
I think Cameron gets most blame for proposing it in the first place. I still think well of Cameron despite this as he is a likable person and a charismatic person. Corbyn always wanted the UK to Leave because it fits with his vision of a socialist Britain and Brexit enables him to fulfil this vision. So, it is not surprising that Corbyn, the veteran campaigner failed to meet the obligation or expectation of millions of Labour voters whose lives will be detrimentally affected by Brexit.
You do seem to want to be argumentative and having a go when I only act as a messenger on the headline in a remain supporting paper
You seem to think the HOC is going to allow no deal.
TM had said it would only be a short extension, the EU want it concluded by June, and I do not support anything like two years
My best guess is TM deal passes and tbe EU grants a short extension but other opinions are available
Yes, I am angry and I've a right to be given the appalling shambles of a Government you support and the millions, if not tens of millions companies, councils and Government itself has been forced to spend in a panicked preparation for a No Deal.
Presumably IF the WDA passes the apologists will be on here hailing it as a political triumph and lauding May to the skies and telling us all what a great Prime Minister she is and how she should lead the Conservatives into the next GE.
Now, let's say it doesn't pass - we all know the line. It will be the fault of the Opposition, the ERG, the Martians, the DUP, anyone and everyone else. It won't be May's fault for putting us in the situation - it won't be the fault of her negotiating team for being so inept and it won't be the fault of her Government for failing to anticipate the possibility of no agreement and not planning accordingly.
You're undermining yourself again by getting all bitter about what you expect so called apologists to do, in essence declaring that anyone with a contrary view cannot possible have any valid points because they are merely an apologist. It will be a political triumph if May gets the WA passed simply because it was so comprehensively thumped, but that would not make your and indeed my criticism of May being very responsible for the path that it has taken, with all manner of delay and focus on partisan positioning, any less valid. It is perfectly possible that something might be a political triumph and yet also be no defence against criticism of all the damage that political triumph required. And your whinges about what you expect others to say just distracts from the validity of the criticism.
I don't know why you don't just make the criticism, rather than this petty game you repeatedly indulge in by trying to preempt potential defences, and do so in very obvious, unfair ways by lumping in any even partial defence as being the work of toadies and apologies. It's pathetic and transparent. May will indeed have to own a great deal of criticism even if she somehow gets her deal through. It doesn't follow that no one could possibly acknowledge anything even remotely positive without being an apologist. It'd be like admiring a single quality of someone who is otherwise, and overwhelmingly, odious; it is possible to do and still acknowledge their odiousness. But you must know that but pretend that it is all just sucking up.
Excellent. High time we stopped nurturing tax-dodging enclaves while pretending to deplore them. If they don't like it, let them declare independence and see how they get on.
I do understand that a lot of Tory members really don't like what some of their MPs have been saying or up to, but these moves don't seem like they will affect anyone's Brexit vote, so you'd assume senior people in the party are gritting teeth in frustration that they are moving now, when Labour is doing its best to grab headlines with its own divisions (not that we've not had rounds of that before).
Not that I'm a May apologist, but is the government preparing for no deal when it shouldn't be (your first para) or not preparing when it should ( third para)?
More generally, this is probably how things were always going to pan out. If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
I know this is an excuse Tories like to tell themselves but Labour voters voted remain at the same rate as SNP supporters and at a slightly lower rate than Lib Dem voters.
It was UKIP and Tories that won it for leave.
Edit: Not that it wouldn't be ridiculous to blame Camerons failings in the referendum on the opposition even if it didn't go against the available facts.
I say blame Cameron, you say I am blaming Cameron's failings on someone else. Perhaps you are drunk?
However many Labour voters voted remain, more would have done so given adequate leadership from the top.
Your post mentioned blaming Corbyn partially for Cameron's faults. Here is the sentence.
____________________________ If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain. ____________________________
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
It mainly seems to be remainer Tories who are convinced of Corbyn's failure. Given the constituencies Labour represents and how pro European the Lib Dems are and the constituencies the SNP represent, why should Labour have got a higher percentage of remain voters?
Or is it that the Lib Dems and the SNP equally let down remainers with their similar result they had to Corbyn?
Are these really showdowns with the Speaker? Bottom line seems to be that he can make any ruling he wants (without thinking about longer term precedents as he himself has admitted) but it doesn't matter if his heart is in the right place or not, the government does not have the numbers to see him removed and definitely won't this side of Brexit. So Bercow's already won and the only thing the government can do is hope that he will, at least sometimes, still consider the issues carefully even though they hate each other.
Not that I'm a May apologist, but is the government preparing for no deal when it shouldn't be (your first para) or not preparing when it should ( third para)?
More generally, this is probably how things were always going to pan out. If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
I know this is an excuse Tories like to tell themselves but Labour voters voted remain at the same rate as SNP supporters and at a slightly lower rate than Lib Dem voters.
It was UKIP and Tories that won it for leave.
Edit: Not that it wouldn't be ridiculous to blame Camerons failings in the referendum on the opposition even if it didn't go against the available facts.
I say blame Cameron, you say I am blaming Cameron's failings on someone else. Perhaps you are drunk?
However many Labour voters voted remain, more would have done so given adequate leadership from the top.
Your post mentioned blaming Corbyn partially for Cameron's faults. Here is the sentence.
____________________________ If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain. ____________________________
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
It mainly seems to be remianer Tories who are convinced of Corbyn's failure. Given the constituencies Labour represents and how pro European the Lib Dems are and the constituencies the SNP represent, why should Labour have got a higher percentage of remain voters?
Or is it that the Lib Dems and the SNP equally let down remainers with their similar result they had to Corbyn?
Your case has to be either that Corbyn did in fact properly campaign for remain, or that he didn't but it is irrelevant because no Labour voter pays any attention to him. Both claims are false.
Not that I'm a May apologist, but is the government preparing for no deal when it shouldn't be (your first para) or not preparing when it should ( third para)?
More generally, this is probably how things were always going to pan out. If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
I know this is an excuse Tories like to tell themselves but Labour voters voted remain at the same rate as SNP supporters and at a slightly lower rate than Lib Dem voters.
It was UKIP and Tories that won it for leave.
Edit: Not that it wouldn't be ridiculous to blame Camerons failings in the referendum on the opposition even if it didn't go against the available facts.
I say blame Cameron, you say I am blaming Cameron's failings on someone else. Perhaps you are drunk?
However many Labour voters voted remain, more would have done so given adequate leadership from the top.
Your post mentioned blaming Corbyn partially for Cameron's faults. Here is the sentence.
____________________________ If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain. ____________________________
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
It mainly seems to be remianer Tories who are convinced of Corbyn's failure. Given the constituencies Labour represents and how pro European the Lib Dems are and the constituencies the SNP represent, why should Labour have got a higher percentage of remain voters?
Or is it that the Lib Dems and the SNP equally let down remainers with their similar result they had to Corbyn?
Your case has to be either that Corbyn did in fact properly campaign for remain, or that he didn't but it is irrelevant because no Labour voter pays any attention to him. Both claims are false.
Is there a reason you've ignored the points regarding the Lib Dems and the SNP?
Is it because those facts don't fit the narrative you prefer?
Not that I'm a May apologist, but is the government preparing for no deal when it shouldn't be (your first para) or not preparing when it should ( third para)?
More generally, this is probably how things were always going to pan out. If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
I know this is an excuse Tories like to tell themselves but Labour voters voted remain at the same rate as SNP supporters and at a slightly lower rate than Lib Dem voters.
It was UKIP and Tories that won it for leave.
Edit: Not that it wouldn't be ridiculous to blame Camerons failings in the referendum on the opposition even if it didn't go against the available facts.
I say blame Cameron, you say I am blaming Cameron's failings on someone else. Perhaps you are drunk?
However many Labour voters voted remain, more would have done so given adequate leadership from the top.
Your post mentioned blaming Corbyn partially for Cameron's faults. Here is the sentence.
____________________________ If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain. ____________________________
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
It mainly seems to be remianer Tories who are convinced of Corbyn's failure. Given the constituencies Labour represents and how pro European the Lib Dems are and the constituencies the SNP represent, why should Labour have got a higher percentage of remain voters?
Or is it that the Lib Dems and the SNP equally let down remainers with their similar result they had to Corbyn?
Your case has to be either that Corbyn did in fact properly campaign for remain, or that he didn't but it is irrelevant because no Labour voter pays any attention to him. Both claims are false.
Is there a reason you've ignored the points regarding the Lib Dems and the SNP?
Is it because those facts don't fit the narrative you prefer?
In non-Brexit related stuff. Was very disappointed at the IAG board and their special dividend. I say that as a holder of many, many IAG shares. The board are completely lacking in any vision and BA has gone from being best in class to being worst in class. It would have been much better for the board to earmark the special dividend to investment in the fleet so they can upgrade Club seating on a much faster schedule and replace the older planes a few years earlier.
Instead of investing in the future of the company and potentially higher returns in the next 2-4 years, we've got a bribe to mollify the institutional shareholders. Truly, British management is awful.
I say blame Cameron, you say I am blaming Cameron's failings on someone else. Perhaps you are drunk?
However many Labour voters voted remain, more would have done so given adequate leadership from the top.
Your post mentioned blaming Corbyn partially for Cameron's faults. Here is the sentence.
____________________________ If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain. ____________________________
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
It mainly seems to be remianer Tories who are convinced of Corbyn's failure. Given the constituencies Labour represents and how pro European the Lib Dems are and the constituencies the SNP represent, why should Labour have got a higher percentage of remain voters?
Or is it that the Lib Dems and the SNP equally let down remainers with their similar result they had to Corbyn?
Your case has to be either that Corbyn did in fact properly campaign for remain, or that he didn't but it is irrelevant because no Labour voter pays any attention to him. Both claims are false.
Is there a reason you've ignored the points regarding the Lib Dems and the SNP?
Is it because those facts don't fit the narrative you prefer?
Why are they relevant?
They are a useful tool to compare to. Scotland a more European friendly region than others in the UK. Lib Dems more of a pro European party.
Presumably their leaders did campaign properly for remain. They got a similar score to Labour. Aside from right wingers who want to blame Tory failings on the left what reason do we have to think Labour voters should have voted by a far greater margin to remain than those 2 parties voters?
It is based on nothing but repetition of the line without proving it to begin with, just stating it doesn't make it so.
Are these really showdowns with the Speaker? Bottom line seems to be that he can make any ruling he wants (without thinking about longer term precedents as he himself has admitted) but it doesn't matter if his heart is in the right place or not, the government does not have the numbers to see him removed and definitely won't this side of Brexit. So Bercow's already won and the only thing the government can do is hope that he will, at least sometimes, still consider the issues carefully even though they hate each other.
Indeed. The Speaker is an absolute Monarch wrt procedure. Don't like the Speaker? Remove him. Don't like his unfettered power? Campaign for reform. They've tried the first and failed. God forbid they try the second, as a whole bunch of other related issues concerning the inadequacies of the Constitution may hove into view. Best not to scare the horses and just whinge about it instead.
I say blame Cameron, you say I am blaming Cameron's failings on someone else. Perhaps you are drunk?
However many Labour voters voted remain, more would have done so given adequate leadership from the top.
Your post mentioned blaming Corbyn partially for Cameron's faults. Here is the sentence.
____________________________ If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain. ____________________________
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
It mainly seems to be remianer Tories who are convinced of Corbyn's failure. Given the constituencies Labour represents and how pro European the Lib Dems are and the constituencies the SNP represent, why should Labour have got a higher percentage of remain voters?
Or is it that the Lib Dems and the SNP equally let down remainers with their similar result they had to Corbyn?
Your case has to be either that Corbyn did in fact properly campaign for remain, or that he didn't but it is irrelevant because no Labour voter pays any attention to him. Both claims are false.
Is there a reason you've ignored the points regarding the Lib Dems and the SNP?
Is it because those facts don't fit the narrative you prefer?
Why are they relevant?
They are a useful tool to compare to. Scotland a more European friendly region than others in the UK. Lib Dems more of a pro European party.
Presumably their leaders did campaign properly for remain. They got a similar score to Labour. Aside from right wingers who want to blame Tory failings on the left what reason do we have to think Labour voters should have voted by a far greater margin to remain than those 2 parties voters?
It is based on nothing but repetition of the line without proving it to begin with, just stating it doesn't make it so.
Ok, so your position is that Corbyn has no influence at all over his own party.
I wonder what my remainer friends would prefer of these two options: 1) Brexit is cancelled, politics goes back to the way it was 2) We still have Brexit, but in return we get to watch the Labour and Conservative parties burn themselves to the ground
I wonder what my remainer friends would prefer of these two options: 1) Brexit is cancelled, politics goes back to the way it was 2) We still have Brexit, but in return we get to watch the Labour and Conservative parties burn themselves to the ground
I'm not sure, I'm conflicted.
I think we end up with no Brexit yet both parties destroyed.
Failure will destroy the Tories, Antisemitism will destroy labour in short order regardless of the result.
Your case has to be either that Corbyn did in fact properly campaign for remain, or that he didn't but it is irrelevant because no Labour voter pays any attention to him. Both claims are false.
Is there a reason you've ignored the points regarding the Lib Dems and the SNP?
Is it because those facts don't fit the narrative you prefer?
Why are they relevant?
They are a useful tool to compare to. Scotland a more European friendly region than others in the UK. Lib Dems more of a pro European party.
Presumably their leaders did campaign properly for remain. They got a similar score to Labour. Aside from right wingers who want to blame Tory failings on the left what reason do we have to think Labour voters should have voted by a far greater margin to remain than those 2 parties voters?
It is based on nothing but repetition of the line without proving it to begin with, just stating it doesn't make it so.
Ok, so your position is that Corbyn has no influence at all over his own party.
Considering you accused me of being drunk for claiming you said something you actually said this is a pretty bold play.
I'm saying Corbyn campaigned for remain properly, If the Lib Dems and the SNP campaigned for remain properly and got similar scores to Labour then it goes against the available evidence to suggest Labour didn't especially considering the SNP has a more EU friendly region and the Lib Dems more pro EU party.
With a similar performance in getting voters for remain I'd argue Labour should be further behind these parties let alone a poorer performance.
In non-Brexit related stuff. Was very disappointed at the IAG board and their special dividend. I say that as a holder of many, many IAG shares. The board are completely lacking in any vision and BA has gone from being best in class to being worst in class. It would have been much better for the board to earmark the special dividend to investment in the fleet so they can upgrade Club seating on a much faster schedule and replace the older planes a few years earlier.
Instead of investing in the future of the company and potentially higher returns in the next 2-4 years, we've got a bribe to mollify the institutional shareholders. Truly, British management is awful.
You obviously lead a very hard life!
I wish I could complain about getting too much money or travelling in business class!
If you have cash to give away because you don't need it, sponsor a homeless person into somewhere to live or failing that help them get services they maybe entitled to but don't understand how to get them.
Some of us have real problems or know people with them, the difference is I will not publicise the ones I encounter.
Please no more bleating about rich peoples problems!
I wonder what my remainer friends would prefer of these two options: 1) Brexit is cancelled, politics goes back to the way it was 2) We still have Brexit, but in return we get to watch the Labour and Conservative parties burn themselves to the ground
Are these really showdowns with the Speaker? Bottom line seems to be that he can make any ruling he wants (without thinking about longer term precedents as he himself has admitted) but it doesn't matter if his heart is in the right place or not, the government does not have the numbers to see him removed and definitely won't this side of Brexit. So Bercow's already won and the only thing the government can do is hope that he will, at least sometimes, still consider the issues carefully even though they hate each other.
Indeed. The Speaker is an absolute Monarch wrt procedure. Don't like the Speaker? Remove him. Don't like his unfettered power? Campaign for reform. They've tried the first and failed. God forbid they try the second, as a whole bunch of other related issues concerning the inadequacies of the Constitution may hove into view. Best not to scare the horses and just whinge about it instead.
I think the problem is that if nothing else the Speaker has to be consistent. It is fine for him to set a precedent and even better if that is giving power to the MPs over the Executive but if that is the case it has to be on every occasion that the same situation arises. What he cannot do is pick and choose which time she does it. Otherwise it just brings the whole position into disrepute.
I do understand that a lot of Tory members really don't like what some of their MPs have been saying or up to, but these moves don't seem like they will affect anyone's Brexit vote, so you'd assume senior people in the party are gritting teeth in frustration that they are moving now, when Labour is doing its best to grab headlines with its own divisions (not that we've not had rounds of that before).
Looking at the East Surrey seat the strength of UKIP in recent elections suggests to me that the East Surrey Tories have been infiltrated by former UKIP supporters. It is a sad state of affairs that Labour and now the Tories have been taken over by the extremes. No wonder people are now concluding that a Centrist Remain party is now a possibility.
The political scandal engulfing the Canadian prime minister has outed him as not quite the hero we all believed he was
That seems to have been the view held by non-Canadians, actual Canadians have been a bit more cynical than that right from the start.
Nope - I have thought he was a clueless muppet for quite a while
In general the public doesn't react much to this sort of thing - either they don't believe it or they can't be bothered to follow it or they think all politicians are the same. Initial polling after the story broke shows some movement but not much:
In the same way, they tend not to react to alleged Ministerial incompetence. The default assumption of many voters is that Ministers are always useless.
Excellent. High time we stopped nurturing tax-dodging enclaves while pretending to deplore them. If they don't like it, let them declare independence and see how they get on.
Are these really showdowns with the Speaker? Bottom line seems to be that he can make any ruling he wants (without thinking about longer term precedents as he himself has admitted) but it doesn't matter if his heart is in the right place or not, the government does not have the numbers to see him removed and definitely won't this side of Brexit. So Bercow's already won and the only thing the government can do is hope that he will, at least sometimes, still consider the issues carefully even though they hate each other.
Indeed. The Speaker is an absolute Monarch wrt procedure. Don't like the Speaker? Remove him. Don't like his unfettered power? Campaign for reform. They've tried the first and failed. God forbid they try the second, as a whole bunch of other related issues concerning the inadequacies of the Constitution may hove into view. Best not to scare the horses and just whinge about it instead.
I think the problem is that if nothing else the Speaker has to be consistent. It is fine for him to set a precedent and even better if that is giving power to the MPs over the Executive but if that is the case it has to be on every occasion that the same situation arises. What he cannot do is pick and choose which time she does it. Otherwise it just brings the whole position into disrepute.
The problem Richard is exactly that he does not have to be consistent. He literally can pick and choose. He may be morally and by precedent constrained, but that matters not a whit. He can do as he likes. It may bring his position into disrepute, but the entire edifice of government and opposition is in that state. We need constitutional reform. Brexit has revealed some unpleasant truths. The current system is entirely unfit for purpose. Sadly, I see the Brexit denouement leading to a situation where we just muddle along. With both parties too fractured, and frankly exhausted to bother.
Are these really showdowns with the Speaker? Bottom line seems to be that he can make any ruling he wants (without thinking about longer term precedents as he himself has admitted) but it doesn't matter if his heart is in the right place or not, the government does not have the numbers to see him removed and definitely won't this side of Brexit. So Bercow's already won and the only thing the government can do is hope that he will, at least sometimes, still consider the issues carefully even though they hate each other.
Indeed. The Speaker is an absolute Monarch wrt procedure. Don't like the Speaker? Remove him. Don't like his unfettered power? Campaign for reform. They've tried the first and failed. God forbid they try the second, as a whole bunch of other related issues concerning the inadequacies of the Constitution may hove into view. Best not to scare the horses and just whinge about it instead.
I think the problem is that if nothing else the Speaker has to be consistent. It is fine for him to set a precedent and even better if that is giving power to the MPs over the Executive but if that is the case it has to be on every occasion that the same situation arises. What he cannot do is pick and choose which time she does it. Otherwise it just brings the whole position into disrepute.
Even worse is if some precedent is followed and a successor is a hyper-partisan like Bercow has become on this issue, but this time on the government's side. Bear in mind much of the time the government has a controlling majority in the Commons.
In the USA the Speaker is a purely partisan position. Nobody pretends Nancy Pelosi is neutral. Bercow's actions are pushing us in that direction.
Imagine if May had won a majority and made someone like Grayling a partisan speaker with the powers and willingness to tear up precedent that Bercow has ...
The political scandal engulfing the Canadian prime minister has outed him as not quite the hero we all believed he was
That seems to have been the view held by non-Canadians, actual Canadians have been a bit more cynical than that right from the start.
Nope - I have thought he was a clueless muppet for quite a while
In general the public doesn't react much to this sort of thing - either they don't believe it or they can't be bothered to follow it or they think all politicians are the same. Initial polling after the story broke shows some movement but not much:
In the same way, they tend not to react to alleged Ministerial incompetence. The default assumption of many voters is that Ministers are always useless.
I heard a story that a government in Canada not that long ago was actually brought down due to a scandal but went on gone on to win the subsequent election. If true, that's the fickle nature of electorates right there.
This is how the Hard Left always end up. Tearing each other apart over minute details of process and procedure, composites, motions, card votes, votes at CLPs which half the local membership didn't know about, slurs, libels etc etc.
Woh. Is Labour really about to split? Watson not messing around now.
Could he be about to lead his team out of the cesspit?
My reading is that Watson is going to stay. He is in a fantastic position because as the elected deputy leader JC simply does not have the authority to sack him
Woh. Is Labour really about to split? Watson not messing around now.
Could he be about to lead his team out of the cesspit?
My reading is that Watson is going to stay. He is in a fantastic position because as the elected deputy leader JC simply does not have the authority to sack him
Looks like total open war now within Labour.
May maybe be tempted to run for the ballot boxes in early May?
Woh. Is Labour really about to split? Watson not messing around now.
Could he be about to lead his team out of the cesspit?
My reading is that Watson is going to stay. He is in a fantastic position because as the elected deputy leader JC simply does not have the authority to sack him
What's the next step? They cannot have such open infighting for long now there's somewhere for the discontented to go (although in a way the very fact of a fight provides some incentive to stay) so what does Corbyn do? Has Watson cornered him?
Woh. Is Labour really about to split? Watson not messing around now.
Could he be about to lead his team out of the cesspit?
My reading is that Watson is going to stay. He is in a fantastic position because as the elected deputy leader JC simply does not have the authority to sack him
Looks like total open war now within Labour.
May maybe be tempted to run for the ballot boxes in early May?
It'd be a total waste if she does. Nothing would re-unite Labour quicker than the start of an election campaign.
Far better to get a couple of years of them pulverising each other and then go to the polls.
Woh. Is Labour really about to split? Watson not messing around now.
Could he be about to lead his team out of the cesspit?
My reading is that Watson is going to stay. He is in a fantastic position because as the elected deputy leader JC simply does not have the authority to sack him
What's the next step? They cannot have such open infighting for long now there's somewhere for the discontented to go (although in a way the very fact of a fight provides some incentive to stay) so what does Corbyn do? Has Watson cornered him?
Corbyn will continue doing what he's done before I imagine: Ignore Watson.
Woh. Is Labour really about to split? Watson not messing around now.
Could he be about to lead his team out of the cesspit?
My reading is that Watson is going to stay. He is in a fantastic position because as the elected deputy leader JC simply does not have the authority to sack him
He can't sack him as deputy leader - but he can remove him from the shadow cabinet and exclude him from many parts of the party apparatus.
Which may well provoke a big walk out - but that remains to be seen.
I have long said that Watson could (and possibly should) lead a walk out of sufficient size to establish a new Official Opposition - stripping Corbyn of that status and a lot of union and institutional support would follow with him.
Woh. Is Labour really about to split? Watson not messing around now.
Could he be about to lead his team out of the cesspit?
My reading is that Watson is going to stay. He is in a fantastic position because as the elected deputy leader JC simply does not have the authority to sack him
He can't sack him as deputy leader - but he can remove him from the shadow cabinet and exclude him from many parts of the party apparatus.
Which may well provoke a big walk out - but that remains to be seen.
I have long said that Watson could (and possibly should) lead a walk out of sufficient size to establish a new Official Opposition - stripping Corbyn of that status and a lot of union and institutional support would follow with him.
The latter is the key. Watson is an old union man iirc. If he gets some backing from the non-Red Len unions behind the scenes then maybe he will.
Plus, what does his old mentor Gordon reckon is the thing to do? Probably stay and fight would be his advise.
Woh. Is Labour really about to split? Watson not messing around now.
Could he be about to lead his team out of the cesspit?
My reading is that Watson is going to stay. He is in a fantastic position because as the elected deputy leader JC simply does not have the authority to sack him
What's the next step? They cannot have such open infighting for long now there's somewhere for the discontented to go (although in a way the very fact of a fight provides some incentive to stay) so what does Corbyn do? Has Watson cornered him?
Corbyn will continue doing what he's done before I imagine: Ignore Watson.
Pretty much this, he isn't one for the fight generally and he isn't going to listen to him where he doesn't want to or need to.
Labour were in pretty much open warfare for a couple of years before the 2017 election, by this point you'd think Corbyn was used to it.
Comments
You seem to think the HOC is going to allow no deal.
TM had said it would only be a short extension, the EU want it concluded by June, and I do not support anything like two years
My best guess is TM deal passes and tbe EU grants a short extension but other opinions are available
Might there be an Aesop fable, or similar, of someone being saved from a bind by the very incompetence that got him into it.
She has already said that Parliament will vote on no-deal (!) on the 13th. But, as you say, even if no-deal is rejected it hasn't then gone away. It's still the default on the 14th when there would be a vote for an extension of time under article 50.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/2962377/Barry-Gardiner-latest-MP-to-be-sacked-for-plotting-against-Gordon-Brown.html
Is that really news ?
It'd be interesting to work out what exactly has to be done for each of outcomes, and when they must be done by.
The cat.
A tub of Lard.
All improvements
Couldn’t be worse.
Presumably IF the WDA passes the apologists will be on here hailing it as a political triumph and lauding May to the skies and telling us all what a great Prime Minister she is and how she should lead the Conservatives into the next GE.
Now, let's say it doesn't pass - we all know the line. It will be the fault of the Opposition, the ERG, the Martians, the DUP, anyone and everyone else. It won't be May's fault for putting us in the situation - it won't be the fault of her negotiating team for being so inept and it won't be the fault of her Government for failing to anticipate the possibility of no agreement and not planning accordingly.
Re the Falklands discussion, at the outset, public opinion was against suffering casualties. Once casualties began to be suffered, public opinion hardened in favour of the conflict.
I don't know why I was thinking of useless organs in the context of Grayling.
Believe you me I am not a hard brexiteer and just want a deal to move on. TM deal is a fair compromise but if it falls then revoke or remain become more likely
Our sentiments did not age well.
More generally, this is probably how things were always going to pan out. If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
But still, Grayling.
It was UKIP and Tories that won it for leave.
Edit: Not that it wouldn't be ridiculous to blame Camerons failings in the referendum on the opposition even if it didn't go against the available facts.
However many Labour voters voted remain, more would have done so given adequate leadership from the top.
I don't know why you don't just make the criticism, rather than this petty game you repeatedly indulge in by trying to preempt potential defences, and do so in very obvious, unfair ways by lumping in any even partial defence as being the work of toadies and apologies. It's pathetic and transparent. May will indeed have to own a great deal of criticism even if she somehow gets her deal through. It doesn't follow that no one could possibly acknowledge anything even remotely positive without being an apologist. It'd be like admiring a single quality of someone who is otherwise, and overwhelmingly, odious; it is possible to do and still acknowledge their odiousness. But you must know that but pretend that it is all just sucking up.
____________________________
If you want to blame someone, try Cameron for having a referendum and Corbyn for not wholeheartedly supporting remain.
____________________________
Seems pretty clear cut to me.
It mainly seems to be remainer Tories who are convinced of Corbyn's failure. Given the constituencies Labour represents and how pro European the Lib Dems are and the constituencies the SNP represent, why should Labour have got a higher percentage of remain voters?
Or is it that the Lib Dems and the SNP equally let down remainers with their similar result they had to Corbyn?
Is it because those facts don't fit the narrative you prefer?
Instead of investing in the future of the company and potentially higher returns in the next 2-4 years, we've got a bribe to mollify the institutional shareholders. Truly, British management is awful.
Presumably their leaders did campaign properly for remain. They got a similar score to Labour. Aside from right wingers who want to blame Tory failings on the left what reason do we have to think Labour voters should have voted by a far greater margin to remain than those 2 parties voters?
It is based on nothing but repetition of the line without proving it to begin with, just stating it doesn't make it so.
They've tried the first and failed.
God forbid they try the second, as a whole bunch of other related issues concerning the inadequacies of the Constitution may hove into view.
Best not to scare the horses and just whinge about it instead.
1) Brexit is cancelled, politics goes back to the way it was
2) We still have Brexit, but in return we get to watch the Labour and Conservative parties burn themselves to the ground
I'm not sure, I'm conflicted.
Failure will destroy the Tories, Antisemitism will destroy labour in short order regardless of the result.
I'm saying Corbyn campaigned for remain properly, If the Lib Dems and the SNP campaigned for remain properly and got similar scores to Labour then it goes against the available evidence to suggest Labour didn't especially considering the SNP has a more EU friendly region and the Lib Dems more pro EU party.
With a similar performance in getting voters for remain I'd argue Labour should be further behind these parties let alone a poorer performance.
I wish I could complain about getting too much money or travelling in business class!
If you have cash to give away because you don't need it, sponsor a homeless person into somewhere to live or failing that help them get services they maybe entitled to but don't understand how to get them.
Some of us have real problems or know people with them, the difference is I will not publicise the ones I encounter.
Please no more bleating about rich peoples problems!
I have put the East Surrey wiki link below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Surrey_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_43rd_Canadian_federal_election
although of course it may build up.
In the same way, they tend not to react to alleged Ministerial incompetence. The default assumption of many voters is that Ministers are always useless.
We need constitutional reform. Brexit has revealed some unpleasant truths. The current system is entirely unfit for purpose.
Sadly, I see the Brexit denouement leading to a situation where we just muddle along. With both parties too fractured, and frankly exhausted to bother.
In the USA the Speaker is a purely partisan position. Nobody pretends Nancy Pelosi is neutral. Bercow's actions are pushing us in that direction.
Imagine if May had won a majority and made someone like Grayling a partisan speaker with the powers and willingness to tear up precedent that Bercow has ...
Could he be about to lead his team out of the cesspit?
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1101635831327014913
let's f***ing hope so.
May maybe be tempted to run for the ballot boxes in early May?
Far better to get a couple of years of them pulverising each other and then go to the polls.
Which may well provoke a big walk out - but that remains to be seen.
I have long said that Watson could (and possibly should) lead a walk out of sufficient size to establish a new Official Opposition - stripping Corbyn of that status and a lot of union and institutional support would follow with him.
Plus, what does his old mentor Gordon reckon is the thing to do? Probably stay and fight would be his advise.
Labour were in pretty much open warfare for a couple of years before the 2017 election, by this point you'd think Corbyn was used to it.