So, Gauke is pushing the (IMHO minority) view that May will be forced to accept a customs union if somehow it goes support this week (I’m doubtful myself).
Maybe but Gauke may not be wrong, sadly. There is one report in today’s papers that if May’s deal doesn’t pass, she’ll go for a soft Brexit which will satisfy absolutely no one
It will satisfy many and possibly the majority in the HOC
I do not agree with it but I accept the reality
I’d rather see the manifesto on which the Tories were elected honoured.
Sometimes manifestoes cannot be honoured, sometimes u-turns are justified and/or necessary
Most of the outcomes now are not what many people will have wanted. Well, half the country wasn't going to get what it wanted anyway (although they might, if we remain), and neither will many others.
Something this big?
Rawnesley's characteristically sharp piece in the Observer today cited exactly that feature as one of the reasons why May is likely to go down as one of the worst PM's in the last hundred years.
Asquith?
It is way to early to judge either Cameron or May.
Indeed - many months and even years need to pass to assess their success or failure
John Major is seen as being better now than he was in the 1990s but he never did anything to screw up the long term ability of the economy to grow. I liked John Major, I remember seeing him in Westminster a few months after the 1997 Tory wipe out. People were enthusiastic toward him despite the Tories brand being as popular as the black death in those times I felt people were boyed by the experience of seeing an ex PM!
I think the current PM has a fundamental flaw in that she has made some very poor decisions and is clearly utterly clueless. The DUP are never going to vote for her deal as it weakens the union. DUP are not interested in economics, they are principally only interested in saving the political union of UK and NI. If that means more poverty then so be it in their eyes. A bit like the Brexit fundamentalists who don't seem to care that tracts of the economy might close down.
Which government ministers will be resigning if May is forced to adopt a Customs Union?
Ben - I have given up caring
Hold fast there Big_G - it can't go on for too much longer, it really can't*.
(*He says, more in hope than expectation.)
12th April is high noon and no deal beckons
The mps have to take a plausable way to stop it and there are few options due to legal constraints
Why thy do not pass the WDA is beyond me, but ERG are beyond redemption in my party and for me
Well maybe a few more Labour MPs will back a WA they have no real objection to and....sorry, couldn't finish that one with a straight face.
Ultimately May has found herself in a poker game with Corbyn, Barnier and Foster. And she's not very good.
May said she was a tough negotiator! lol
I cannot understand how someone so inadequate and completely out of their depth has survived as long as she has. She is really very bad. Embarrassingly bad!
Nobody had the balls or moral fibre to do so. All of them thought they'd let her take the blame and they'd rule over the rubble. It's good for them and if it fucks us up, well, we're only the voters...
The Tories are in real trouble over Brexit. The people I have talked to over the last few days who usually support the Tories are starting to get really angry that Brexit is going ahead despite the likely implications of a No Deal Brexit. May has to act in the national interest and revoke article 50. If she sides with the hard Brexit crowd it is not unfeasible that the Tories could suffer a Canadian 1990s style Wipeout.
You are talking to different Tories than me.....
There were lots of people on the big march who looked and sounded a lot like the kinds of people you'd expect to be Tories. I didn't think the people protesting last Friday looked much like Tories at all.
Many of them would have been Tories pre-Thatcher/Major when places like Hornsey & Wood Green, Manchester Withington and Bristol West were safely Conservative. But, a chunk of middle class voters were lost in those years, and they never came back. A lot of people who fit the stereotype of Tory voters are not.
She’ll resign and pass the decision on to someone else .
She doesn't have to. It is unstoppable without legislation all passed with royal assent by the 12th April
TM resigning does not address the legislation required
She won’t agree a CU and won’t no deal .
She will say another leader needs to reset the negotiations and will ask for an extension till the end of the year . Her going will diffuse the situation re a longer delay . The Tories will stomach a longer extension if May goes soon.
Which government ministers will be resigning if May is forced to adopt a Customs Union?
Ben - I have given up caring
Hold fast there Big_G - it can't go on for too much longer, it really can't*.
(*He says, more in hope than expectation.)
12th April is high noon and no deal beckons
The mps have to take a plausable way to stop it and there are few options due to legal constraints
Why thy do not pass the WDA is beyond me, but ERG are beyond redemption in my party and for me
Well maybe a few more Labour MPs will back a WA they have no real objection to and....sorry, couldn't finish that one with a straight face.
Ultimately May has found herself in a poker game with Corbyn, Barnier and Foster. And she's not very good.
(
Actually the reverse, Deltapoll today had Tory voters backing No Deal 57% to 36%, Tory voters rejected EUref2 61% to 29% and revoke 59% to 31% so the only way the Tories suffer a 1990s style Wipeout is by backing EUref2 or revoke as they would then likely be overtaken by Farage's new Brexit Party or UKIP much as the Progressive Tories in Canada were overtaken by the more rightwing Reform Party in 1993. The only other option on Brexit Tories supported was May's Deal plus CU 42% to 27% although that still got less Tory support than No Deal
Indeed in Epping canvassing at the weekend I found on balance more voters complaining that we were still in the EU when we due to Leave last Friday than wanted to stop Brexit completely.
I prefer qualitive sources of information to opinion polls which have been shown to be wildly inaccurate and the quantitive sources of data that underpin them are sometimes corrupt./skewed Just think of some of the polling fails that have underwritten the political process in the last 30 years! I find some of your faith in opinion polls to be deeply naive. If the Tories split or dip below critical mass in a GE then they will get slaughtered on the ground. I don't think a Brexit party will find FPTP an ambivalent system as it will cut them to shreds. An example is the Green party in 1989 where despite a good showing in popular votes they got nothing!
Rawnesley's characteristically sharp piece in the Observer today cited exactly that feature as one of the reasons why May is likely to go down as one of the worst PM's in the last hundred years.
Interestingly he gave as the four worst to date Ramsay McDonald, Chamberlain, Eden and Cameron. Not sure of I agree with that last one, and personally I'd have Baldwin in my worst four, but am sure PBers will have plenty of opinions on the matter!
The worst leader since Charles 1, whom she resembles by being at the same time totally inflexible and utterly untrustworthy. A fatal combination for a leader, as King Charles found out to his cost. The compensation perhaps is that Theresa May might still be better than her successor.
Charles I was rather more popular with Parliament.
Perhaps this is the week the Tory Party will finally break. A division that has been predicted for much of my adult lifetime.
Most Tory MPs have voted to keep No Deal on the table and most Tory voters and members back No Deal in the polls over Remain, it may be a minority of Tory Remainers defect to TIG/CUK much as some Blairites from Labour and Soubry, Allen and Wollaston have already done but the Tory Party will remain.
Remember even when Peel's supporters defected from the Tories after the Commons voted to repeal the Corn Laws ultimately to form the Liberals with the Whigs the Tory Party remained in the form of the protectionist majority of the Party
Leaving aside whether the header is valuable or not as a piece of political commentary, TSE mentions betting implications - it would be interesting to know what you feel those are, and perhaps even how you've adjusted your betting accordingly.
She’ll resign and pass the decision on to someone else .
She doesn't have to. It is unstoppable without legislation all passed with royal assent by the 12th April
TM resigning does not address the legislation required
She won’t agree a CU and won’t no deal .
She will say another leader needs to reset the negotiations and will ask for an extension till the end of the year . Her going will diffuse the situation re a longer delay . The Tories will stomach a longer extension if May goes soon.
With respect you are not understanding there is no time for this
Just where do you think the legislation to stop no deal and indeed for the HOc to approve EU elections is coming from in just 12 days
Futhermore any extension has to have a majority HOC view for the EU to consider it
Indeed it may just be we run out of legislative time
Also TM will not agree a CU, so it is her WDA or no deal happens by default on the 12th April
Which government ministers will be resigning if May is forced to adopt a Customs Union?
Ben - I have given up caring
Hold fast there Big_G - it can't go on for too much longer, it really can't*.
(*He says, more in hope than expectation.)
12th April is high noon and no deal beckons
The mps have to take a plausable way to stop it and there are few options due to legal constraints
Why thy do not pass the WDA is beyond me, but ERG are beyond redemption in my party and for me
Well maybe a few more Labour MPs will back a WA they have no real objection to and....sorry, couldn't finish that one with a straight face.
Ultimately May has found herself in a poker game with Corbyn, Barnier and Foster. And she's not very good.
(
Actually the reverse, Deltapoll today had Tory voters backing No Deal 57% to 36%, Tory voters rejected EUref2 61% to 29% and revoke 59% to 31% so the only way the Tories suffer a 1990s style Wipeout is by backing EUref2 or revoke as they would then likely be overtaken by Farage's new Brexit Party or UKIP much as the Progressive Tories in Canada
Indeed in Epping canvassing at the weekend I found on balance more voters complaining that we were still in the EU when we due to Leave last Friday than wanted to stop Brexit completely.
I prefer qualitive sources of information to opinion polls which have been shown to be wildly inaccurate and the quantitive sources of data that underpin them are sometimes corrupt./skewed Just think of some of the polling fails that have underwritten the political process in the last 30 years! I find some of your faith in opinion polls to be deeply naive. If the Tories split or dip below critical mass in a GE then they will get slaughtered on the ground. I don't think a Brexit party will find FPTP an ambivalent system as it will cut them to shreds. An example is the Green party in 1989 where despite a good showing in popular votes they got nothing!
The Conservatives could be slaughtered, but only if they face a rival on the right, which they don't.
Absurdly, some Lib Dems thought they could replace the Conservatives in 2005, despite being to the Left of them.
She’ll resign and pass the decision on to someone else .
She doesn't have to. It is unstoppable without legislation all passed with royal assent by the 12th April
TM resigning does not address the legislation required
She won’t agree a CU and won’t no deal .
She will say another leader needs to reset the negotiations and will ask for an extension till the end of the year . Her going will diffuse the situation re a longer delay . The Tories will stomach a longer extension if May goes soon.
With respect you are not understanding there is no time for this
Just where do you think the legislation to stop no deal and indeed for the HOc to approve EU elections is coming from in just 12 days
Futhermore any extension has to have a majority HOC view for the EU to consider it
Indeed it may just be we run out of legislative time
Also TM will not agree a CU, so it is her WDA or no deal happens by default on the 12th April
I am not sure, if the Commons votes for her Deal but only with a CU as Gauke says she cannot press on without a clash between executive and legislature and I cannot see the Queen allowing that to go on.
May knows that too hence she has said she will never allow No Deal unless the Commons votes for it. If the Commons votes for a CU tomorrow I suspect May will then put up her Deal as is v her Deal with a CU and say she will implement whatever of the 2 the Commons votes for and stay PM to then sign off with the EU and see the WA with or without a CU in the PD get royal assent.
However she will step down as Tory leader as soon as the WA with or without a CU passes the Commons giving the Tories a few months to have a leadership contest before she finally steps down as PM
She’ll resign and pass the decision on to someone else .
She doesn't have to. It is unstoppable without legislation all passed with royal assent by the 12th April
TM resigning does not address the legislation required
She won’t agree a CU and won’t no deal .
She will say another leader needs to reset the negotiations and will ask for an extension till the end of the year . Her going will diffuse the situation re a longer delay . The Tories will stomach a longer extension if May goes soon.
With respect you are not understanding there is no time for this
Just where do you think the legislation to stop no deal and indeed for the HOc to approve EU elections is coming from in just 12 days
Futhermore any extension has to have a majority HOC view for the EU to consider it
Indeed it may just be we run out of legislative time
Also TM will not agree a CU, so it is her WDA or no deal happens by default on the 12th April
We know parliament can extend Brexit. If we want a different path, we signal that to the EU, agree a reasonable date, and use the statutory instrument to amend the Brexit act date. It can be done quickly. We know this, because it has just happened.
Hold fast there Big_G - it can't go on for too much longer, it really can't*.
(*He says, more in hope than expectation.)
12th April is high noon and no deal beckons
The mps have to take a plausable way to stop it and there are few options due to legal constraints
Why thy do not pass the WDA is beyond me, but ERG are beyond redemption in my party and for me
Well maybe a few more Labour MPs will back a WA they have no real objection to and....sorry, couldn't finish that one with a straight face.
Ultimately May has found herself in a poker game with Corbyn, Barnier and Foster. And she's not very good.
May said she was a tough negotiator! lol
I cannot understand how someone so inadequate and completely out of their depth has survived as long as she has. She is really very bad. Embarrassingly bad!
Nobody had the balls or moral fibre to do so. All of them thought they'd let her take the blame and they'd rule over the rubble. It's good for them and if it fucks us up, well, we're only the voters...
The Tories are in real trouble over Brexit. The people I have talked to over the last few days who usually support the Tories are starting to get really angry that Brexit is going ahead despite the likely implications of a No Deal Brexit. May has to act in the national interest and revoke article 50. If she sides with the hard Brexit crowd it is not unfeasible that the Tories could suffer a Canadian 1990s style Wipeout.
The Tories have become UKIP. If you were a Conservative of a couple of years ago, who opposed UKIP at the time you will be alienated by what the party has become.
The type of Tories I meet have been lifelong supporters. The support structure for the party may have changed and this maybe why none of us are likely to vote for it again. Personally, I think the Tories made a mistake to ditch middle of the road Tories for fair weather Brexit supporters. I think I will support Change/ Independent group and failing that Lib Dems until Labour is taken back by the moderates.
You do realise that the moderates cannot take back Labour. Momentum and the Corbynites hold all the levers of power - except the deputy leadership. If Tom Watson fails as a voice of moderation then the hard left will rule if Labour win. That will make Brexit seem like a tea party
I prefer qualitive sources of information to opinion polls which have been shown to be wildly inaccurate and the quantitive sources of data that underpin them are sometimes corrupt./skewed Just think of some of the polling fails that have underwritten the political process in the last 30 years! I find some of your faith in opinion polls to be deeply naive. If the Tories split or dip below critical mass in a GE then they will get slaughtered on the ground. I don't think a Brexit party will find FPTP an ambivalent system as it will cut them to shreds. An example is the Green party in 1989 where despite a good showing in popular votes they got nothing!
You can think what you want but I quoted both canvassing and polling.
The Tories will not get below 30 to 35% provided they deliver Brexit, probably in whatever form, if the Tories fail to deliver Brexit however and we stay in the EU they would be lucky to get 20%.
Your FPTP point is of course totally contradictory to your earlier point about the Tories facing a Canada 1993 style wipeout given Canada has FPTP and in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives in Canada fell from 43% at the last election to just 16% and 156 seats to just 2 while the more rightwing Reform Party overtook them to surge from 2% at the last election to 19% and 1 seat to 52 to become the main party of the right in Canada until they merged with the Progressive Conservatives in 2003 to become the Conservative Party of Canada which finally beat the governing Liberals in 2006
Hold fast there Big_G - it can't go on for too much longer, it really can't*.
(*He says, more in hope than expectation.)
12th April is high noon and no deal beckons
The mps have to take a plausable way to stop it and there are few options due to legal constraints
Why thy do not pass the WDA is beyond me, but ERG are beyond redemption in my party and for me
Well maybe a few more Labour MPs will back a WA they have no real objection to and....sorry, couldn't finish that one with a straight face.
Ultimately May has found herself in a poker game with Corbyn, Barnier and Foster. And she's not very good.
May said she was a tough negotiator! lol
I cannot understand how someone so inadequate and completely out of their depth has survived as long as she has. She is really very bad. Embarrassingly bad!
Nobody had the balls or moral fibre to do so. All of them thought they'd let her take the blame and they'd rule over the rubble. It's good for them and if it fucks us up, well, we're only the voters...
The Tories are in real trouble over Brexit. The people I have talked to over the last few days who usually support the Tories are starting to get really angry that Brexit is going ahead despite the likely implications of a No Deal Brexit. May has to act in the national interest and revoke article 50. If she sides with the hard Brexit crowd it is not unfeasible that the Tories could suffer a Canadian 1990s style Wipeout.
You do realise that the moderates cannot take back Labour. Momentum and the Corbynites hold all the levers of power - except the deputy leadership. If Tom Watson fails as a voice of moderation then the hard left will rule if Labour win. That will make Brexit seem like a tea party
It’s not probable, certainly in the near term. But it is by no means impossible. At some point, Corbyn will go. It remains unlikely that a hard-leftwinger gets on the ballot.
The Telegraph reckons 13 no-dealers in the Cabinet and 10 customs union supporters (4 undecided).
I think that's wishful thinking on the Telegraph's part:
Which of these are No Dealers?:
Steve Barclay Karen Bradley James Brokenshire Alun Cairns Greg Clark Geoffrey Cox Leo Docherty Liam Fox David Gauke Michael Gove Chris Grayling Philip Hammond Matt Hancock Damian Hinds Jeremy Hunt Sajid Javid Eleanor Laing Andrea Leadsom Brandon Lewis David Lidington Theresa May Penny Mordaunt David Mundell Caroline Nokes Claire Perry Amber Rudd Julian Smith Liz Truss Gavin Williamson Jeremy Wright
Fox, Leadsom, Mordaunt, Truss, Barclay, who else?
Fox isn't, Grayling is.
Fox is petrified that his disastrous tenure at DfIT is about to bite him in the arse.
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to communicate to the country.
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
Perhaps this is the week the Tory Party will finally break. A division that has been predicted for much of my adult lifetime.
Most Tory MPs have voted to keep No Deal on the table and most Tory voters and members back No Deal in the polls over Remain, it may be a minority of Tory Remainers defect to TIG/CUK much as some Blairites from Labour and Soubry, Allen and Wollaston have already done but the Tory Party will remain...
Sweet. You really do think that support for No Deal would survive contact with the reality of No Deal, don't you?
Perhaps this is the week the Tory Party will finally break. A division that has been predicted for much of my adult lifetime.
Most Tory MPs have voted to keep No Deal on the table and most Tory voters and members back No Deal in the polls over Remain, it may be a minority of Tory Remainers defect to TIG/CUK much as some Blairites from Labour and Soubry, Allen and Wollaston have already done but the Tory Party will remain...
Sweet. You really do think that support for No Deal would survive contact with the reality of No Deal, don't you?
In my weaker moments, I half wish we would No Deal, just so the Brexiteers will get what they want and then the Tory party will be destroyed.
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to communicate to the country.
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
It wasn't a triumph at all. I don't want to criticise too much, but it was what any government, of any party, would have done. The actual implementation, when it finally happened, was pretty good - but it's Darling, not Brown, who deserves the credit for that. And before that, the earlier response was absolutely dire. The Northern Rock bank run was a completely avoidable disaster, and the pushing of HBOS into Lloyds (Brown's biggest personal intervention) converted a crisis in a minor bank into a crisis in a major bank.
Perhaps this is the week the Tory Party will finally break. A division that has been predicted for much of my adult lifetime.
Most Tory MPs have voted to keep No Deal on the table and most Tory voters and members back No Deal in the polls over Remain, it may be a minority of Tory Remainers defect to TIG/CUK much as some Blairites from Labour and Soubry, Allen and Wollaston have already done but the Tory Party will remain...
Sweet. You really do think that support for No Deal would survive contact with the reality of No Deal, don't you?
In my weaker moments, I half wish we would No Deal, just so the Brexiteers will get what they want and then the Tory party will be destroyed.
I kind of feel the same, although I don't have the same degree of antipathy towards the Tory Party. Nevertheless I think it might in the end prove a chastening experience for people to find out what No deal really means, and in the long run - perhaps very long run - we might be better off for learning the hard way.
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to communicate to the country.
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
It wasn't a triumph at all. I don't want to criticise too much, but it was what any government, of any party, would have done. The actual implementation, when it finally happened, was pretty good - but it's Darling, not Brown, who deserves the credit for that. And before that, the earlier response was absolutely dire. The Northern Rock bank run was a completely avoidable disaster, and the pushing of HBOS into Lloyds (Brown's biggest personal intervention) converted a crisis in a minor bank into a crisis in a major bank.
Overall, about 4/10.
That’s a whole 4 more than May and 5 more than Cameron.
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to communicate to the country.
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
It wasn't a triumph at all. I don't want to criticise too much, but it was what any government, of any party, would have done. The actual implementation, when it finally happened, was pretty good - but it's Darling, not Brown, who deserves the credit for that. And before that, the earlier response was absolutely dire. The Northern Rock bank run was a completely avoidable disaster, and the pushing of HBOS into Lloyds (Brown's biggest personal intervention) converted a crisis in a minor bank into a crisis in a major bank.
Overall, about 4/10.
That’s a whole 4 more than May and 5 more than Cameron.
If English MPs alone had voted on May's Deal last week it would have passed 266 for, 254 against and we would now be ready to Leave the EU on the basis of the WA
ENGLAND: 266 MPs for, 256 MPs against (51%-49%) SCOTLAND: 13 for, 45 against (22%-78%) WALES: 6 for, 33 against (15%-85%) NORTHERN IRELAND: 1 for, 10 against (9%-91%)
I prefer qualitive sources of information to opinion polls which have been shown to be wildly inaccurate and the quantitive sources of data that underpin them are sometimes corrupt./skewed Just think of some of the polling fails that have underwritten the political process in the last 30 years! I find some of your faith in opinion polls to be deeply naive. If the Tories split or dip below critical mass in a GE then they will get slaughtered on the ground. I don't think a Brexithowing in popular votes they got nothing!
You can think what you want but I quoted both canvassing and polling.
The Tories will not get below 30 to 35% provided they deliver Brexit, probably in whatever form, if the Tories fail to deliver Brexit however and we stay in the EU they would be lucky to get 20%.
Your FPTP point is of course totally contradictory to your earlier point about the Tories facing a Canada 1993 style wipeout given Canada has FPTP and in 1993 the Progressive Conservatives in Canada fell from 43% at the last election to just 16% and 156 seats to just 2 while the more rightwing Reform Party overtook them to surge from 2% at the last election to 19% and 1 seat to 52 to become the main party of the right in Canada until they merged with the Progressive Conservatives in 2003 to become the Conservative Party of Canada which finally beat the governing Liberals in 2006
About 25% of Conservative voters disagree with Brexit, and 10-15% dislike it very much.
That leaves 75% who are in favour, and 10-15% who can live with it.
So, people like @The Taxman aren't wrong, when they talk about meeting lifelong Conservatives who hate Brexit. That will be especially the case if you work in the City or West End, or live in the Stockbroker Belt, or Fulham. Conversely, you won't meet many Conservatives in Essex, Lincolnshire, or North Kent who disagree with Brexit, let alone hate it.
Brexit is a big issue, but not the only issue in determining party allegiance.
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to communicate to the country.
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
It wasn't a triumph at all. I don't want to criticise too much, but it was what any government, of any party, would have done. The actual implementation, when it finally happened, was pretty good - but it's Darling, not Brown, who deserves the credit for that. And before that, the earlier response was absolutely dire. The Northern Rock bank run was a completely avoidable disaster, and the pushing of HBOS into Lloyds (Brown's biggest personal intervention) converted a crisis in a minor bank into a crisis in a major bank.
Overall, about 4/10.
That’s a whole 4 more than May and 5 more than Cameron.
Cameron and Osborne rescued the country. 10/10.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, creating problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
Perhaps this is the week the Tory Party will finally break. A division that has been predicted for much of my adult lifetime.
Most Tory MPs have voted to keep No Deal on the table and most Tory voters and members back No Deal in the polls over Remain, it may be a minority of Tory Remainers defect to TIG/CUK much as some Blairites from Labour and Soubry, Allen and Wollaston have already done but the Tory Party will remain...
Sweet. You really do think that support for No Deal would survive contact with the reality of No Deal, don't you?
In my weaker moments, I half wish we would No Deal, just so the Brexiteers will get what they want and then the Tory party will be destroyed.
I kind of feel the same, although I don't have the same degree of antipathy towards the Tory Party. Nevertheless I think it might in the end prove a chastening experience for people to find out what No deal really means, and in the long run - perhaps very long run - we might be better off for learning the hard way.
Indeed. Kinda of how I am thinking now. Then I catch on to myself, as they say in NI.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osborne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to communicate to the country.
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
It wasn't a triumph at all. I don't want to criticise too much, but it was what any government, of any party, would have done. The actual implementation, when it finally happened, was pretty good - but it's Darling, not Brown, who deserves the credit for that. And before that, the earlier response was absolutely dire. The Northern Rock bank run was a completely avoidable disaster, and the pushing of HBOS into Lloyds (Brown's biggest personal intervention) converted a crisis in a minor bank into a crisis in a major bank.
Overall, about 4/10.
That’s a whole 4 more than May and 5 more than Cameron.
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to communicate to the country.
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
It wasn't a triumph at all. I don't want to criticise too much, but it was what any government, of any party, would have done. The actual implementation, when it finally happened, was pretty good - but it's Darling, not Brown, who deserves the credit for that. And before that, the earlier response was absolutely dire. The Northern Rock bank run was a completely avoidable disaster, and the pushing of HBOS into Lloyds (Brown's biggest personal intervention) converted a crisis in a minor bank into a crisis in a major bank.
Overall, about 4/10.
That’s a whole 4 more than May and 5 more than Cameron.
Cameron and Osborne rescued the country. 10/10.
Is this rescued
No, unfortunately. All the good work has been thrown away (although we do at least have reasonably sound public finances, still, and ultra-low unemployment).
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to communicate to the country.
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
It wasn't a triumph at all. I don't want to criticise too much, but it was what any government, of any party, would have done. The actual implementation, when it finally happened, was pretty good - but it's Darling, not Brown, who deserves the credit for that. And before that, the earlier response was absolutely dire. The Northern Rock bank run was a completely avoidable disaster, and the pushing of HBOS into Lloyds (Brown's biggest personal intervention) converted a crisis in a minor bank into a crisis in a major bank.
Overall, about 4/10.
We've had this debate before, Richard, and I don't dispute that Brown contributed to the problem in the first place, nor that Darling played a major and valuable part. But rescuing the international banking system needed a figure of international standing, and that was Brown - not Darling (who would have been little known outside the UK ) - and he was ideally suited to play such a role.
I like to think of Brown and Blair as reverse images of each other. Blair was imo a pretty good PM overall with one appalling policy that defined him as a failure. Brown was a crap PM with one defining success.
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to communicate to the country.
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
It wasn't a triumph at all. I don't want to criticise too much, but it was what any government, of any party, would have done. The actual implementation, when it finally happened, was pretty good - but it's Darling, not Brown, who deserves the credit for that. And before that, the earlier response was absolutely dire. The Northern Rock bank run was a completely avoidable disaster, and the pushing of HBOS into Lloyds (Brown's biggest personal intervention) converted a crisis in a minor bank into a crisis in a major bank.
Overall, about 4/10.
We've had this debate before, Richard, and I don't dispute that Brown contributed to the problem in the first place, nor that Darling played a major and valuable part. But rescuing the international banking system needed a figure of international standing, and that was Brown - not Darling (who would have been little known outside the UK ) - and he was ideally suited to play such a role.
I like to think of Brown and Blair as reverse images of each other. Blair was imo a pretty good PM overall with one appalling policy that defined him as a failure. Brown was a crap PM with one defining success.
Would make a good essay topic that!
He didn't rescue the international banking system, that's absolute tosh. His government rescued the two big British banks, plus a few minor ones - which is a good thing, and due credit for that. But let's not buy into his absurd boasting that he had any part in the rescue of German or US banks.
I’d rather see the manifesto on which the Tories were elected honoured.
It didn't win a majority.
Why not the DUP manifesto?
Because the gains were made by Labour who also campaigned on a Leave platform and its the Tories who are in power albeit courtesy of the DUP who are more supportive of the Tory manifesto on Brexit than many Tories.
How does that work? Because Labour gained seats then that means the Tory manifesto should be honoured? They’re a minority government and minority governments don’t get to do everything in their manifesto.
Ignoring the fact that abiding by the referendum was also one of Labour's manifesto pledges.
Indeed the one UK wide party that supported reversing the referendum result actually managed to lose votes compared to the previous election.
The manifesto said what a Labour government would do, not what a Labour opposition would do.
And therein lies your problem. Europhiles can only win these arguments by pointing out just how slippery and dishonest their own arguments are.
I am truly amazed you cannot hear how utterly disingenuous and unprincipled these statements sound to normal non political people.
This is one of the reasons both Europhiles and politicians in general are held in such contempt. Because no matter what the argument they will try and find some way to justify their perfidy.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osborne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
You been on the juice tonite, Richard?! You gonna start apportioning blame, you got to start at the top where the greatest power resides, and then work your way down.
I'd start with the EU and work my way through quite a few institutions and individuals before I got down to me and thee.
You want the Tory manifesto because they lost seats to Labour...
Do you understand how elections work?
I want the Tory manifesto because the Tories are in Gov so your question is one for you to answer.
Manifestos require legislative action. The people who published the manifesto do not command a majority in the legislature. As a result they cannot pass all the legislation required to fulfil the manifesto and therefore need to find alternatives. Is that so hard to understand?
It is an argument that collapses entirely when over 80% of the legislature in question included the same promise in their manifestos.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Gordon Brown was very bad. He deliberately made a bad situation even worse through profligate spending, embarrassing obsession with Barack Obama and complete inability to co
By "deliberately made a bad situation even worse" you mean Gordon Brown led and coordinated the international response to contain the global financial crisis?
Some might argue that was his only significant success as PM, but it was an incredibly important one. As for an 'obsession with Barack Obama', the newly elected President was only too happy to led Brown lead on a crisis that Brown was plainly well equipped to handle.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
It wasn't a triumph at all. I don't want to criticise too much, but it was what any government, of any party, would have done. The actual implementation, when it finally happened, was pretty good - but it's Darling, not Brown, who deserves the credit for that. And before that, the earlier response was absolutely dire. The Northern Rock bank run was a completely avoidable disaster, and the pushing of HBOS into Lloyds (Brown's biggest personal intervention) converted a crisis in a minor bank into a crisis in a major bank.
Overall, about 4/10.
We've had this debate before, Richard, and I don't dispute that Brown contributed to the problem in the first place, nor that Darling played a major and valuable part. But rescuing the international banking system needed a figure of international standing, and that was Brown - not Darling (who would have been little known outside the UK ) - and he was ideally suited to play such a role.
I like to think of Brown and Blair as reverse images of each other. Blair was imo a pretty good PM overall with one appalling policy that defined him as a failure. Brown was a crap PM with one defining success.
Would make a good essay topic that!
He didn't rescue the international banking system, that's absolute tosh. His government rescued the two big British banks, plus a few minor ones - which is a good thing, and due credit for that. But let's not buy into his absurd boasting that he had any part in the rescue of German or US banks.
OK, get hold of the aforementioned 'End Of The Party', look up G20 Summit in the index and read the appropriate sections.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osborne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
You been on the juice tonite, Richard?! You gonna start apportioning blame, you got to start at the top where the greatest power resides, and then work your way down.
I'd start with the EU and work my way through quite a few institutions and individuals before I got down to me and thee.
Well me and thee (or at least me!) have no blame.
Beyond that, yes, there are lots of politicians and others who made mistakes in the lead-up to the referendum, and in the negotiations afterwards. But the electorate are not children. No-one forced them to vote as they voted, and if you support democracy, then you support the view that the electorate get to decide. Well they did get to decide - and therefore they are responsible for their decisions. They, and not ultimately the politicians.
You want the Tory manifesto because they lost seats to Labour...
Do you understand how elections work?
I want the Tory manifesto because the Tories are in Gov so your question is one for you to answer.
Manifestos require legislative action. The people who published the manifesto do not command a majority in the legislature. As a result they cannot pass all the legislation required to fulfil the manifesto and therefore need to find alternatives. Is that so hard to understand?
It is an argument that collapses entirely when over 80% of the legislature in question included the same promise in their manifestos.
Could you find me where in the Labour manifesto it commits to voting for May's deal, or where it commits to leaving by 29 March 2019?
The MPs seem to want to make this unnecessarily complicated. A permanent Customs Union is the obvious front runner and needs to be put back into the process. There's a question as to whether a referendum should be tied to it, producing a second option. The government needs to decide whether to throw May's deal into the mix for a quasi-MV4; if they do, there's a third option. If they are willing to subject this to a referendum as well, there's a possible fourth option. No deal and revoke probably have to stay in the process to give the people on each of the spectrum something to support before their preferences are transferred. So six in total, even if the government plays ball. Even if Labour's semi-unicorn has to stay in as the official opposition's first choice, that's only seven. Five if HMG doesn't want May's deal in the field.
Surely that should be it?
'A' permanent customs union will destroy a significant proportion of our non EU trade overnight.
Less destruction than NOT being in the/a customs union however. We can't compare with membership of the European Union. Every Brexit outcome represents a downgrade. Staying in the customs union means a smaller downgrade overall.
Nope. Not being in a Customs Union is far better because it still allows us to develop trade deals of our own with those countries which already have them with the EU. Being in 'A' Customs Union means we will never be able to negotiate those trade deals as those countries will already have tariff free access to our markets. That is why Turkey is so unhappy with its own customs union with the EU.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osborne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
You been on the juice tonite, Richard?! You gonna start apportioning blame, you got to start at the top where the greatest power resides, and then work your way down.
I'd start with the EU and work my way through quite a few institutions and individuals before I got down to me and thee.
Well me and thee (or at least me!) have no blame.
Beyond that, yes, there are lots of politicians and others who made mistakes in the lead-up to the referendum, and in the negotiations afterwards. But the electorate are not children. No-one forced them to vote as they voted, and if you support democracy, then you support the view that the electorate get to decide. Well they did get to decide - and therefore they are responsible for their decisions. They, and not ultimately the politicians.
Harsh but I haven't the energy to argue. Got to go to bed. More indicative votes tomorrow. Sigh.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
At some point we have to choose from a list of unstisfactory options. Currently the EU accounts for nearly half our exports, plus there is the NI thing. We can't, in the immortal phrase, have our cake and eat it. This is the Brexit undividend. Asymmetric tariffs for those of our non-EU trading partners is one such cost.
The issue of EU trade goes away of we are in the Single Market. And without the issues of 3rd party tariff free access. That is why EFTA countries have never joined a customs union with the EU. It is truly the dumbest idea known to man.
It is also why the EFTA route is by far the most sensible. As some of us have been saying for the last 4 or more years.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Not at all. They wisely took his advice in 2015. Then they very unwisely failed to take his advice in 2016.
You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting WW2. Noble, but somewhat out of touch. Cameron really doesn’t deserve your continued loyalty.
Boris Johnson exclusive: "The Tories need to get on with Brexit and learn to believe in Britain again"
(Telegraph)
Is anyone still listening to this pseudo-Edwardian jingoist crap anymore?
Sadly, probably the answer is yes, but only Tory members.
He's astonishing - what the hell does he think people have been trying to do while he's been opposing Brexit because it wasn't perfect enough before finally agreeing it was better than nothing?
You want the Tory manifesto because they lost seats to Labour...
Do you understand how elections work?
I want the Tory manifesto because the Tories are in Gov so your question is one for you to answer.
Manifestos require legislative action. The people who published the manifesto do not command a majority in the legislature. As a result they cannot pass all the legislation required to fulfil the manifesto and therefore need to find alternatives. Is that so hard to understand?
It is an argument that collapses entirely when over 80% of the legislature in question included the same promise in their manifestos.
But it was perhaps inevitable that the losers (in this case Labour) would insist that the Brexit they were promising is different from the one that the winners promised. Hence stalemate. Frankly, Labour have been very clever/naughty (depending on your point of view) in using this stalemate to leverage an early general election (at the expense of trashing the UK's reputation - it seems that's okay to Corbyn as long as the Tories get the blame). They haven't succeeded yet (in forcing an election) but it's only a matter of time.
I’d rather see the manifesto on which the Tories were elected honoured.
It didn't win a majority.
Why not the DUP manifesto?
Because the gains were made by Labour who also campaigned on a Leave platform and its the Tories who are in power albeit courtesy of the DUP who are more supportive of the Tory manifesto on Brexit than many Tories.
How does that work? Because Labour gained seats then that means the Tory manifesto should be honoured? They’re a minority government and minority governments don’t get to do everything in their manifesto.
Ignoring the fact that abiding by the referendum was also one of Labour's manifesto pledges.
Indeed the one UK wide party that supported reversing the referendum result actually managed to lose votes compared to the previous election.
Labour's manifesto also rejected a No Deal Brexit.
The Labour manifesto also made no mention of 29th March 2019 being the unchangeable exit day; and it explicitly reserved the right to vote against May's deal (if it failed their "six tests").
People can say Labour's positions on rejecting May's deal / delaying Brexit are wrong, or contradictory, or that the "six tests" were impossible to meet, or whatever - but they can't say that Labour's voters in 2017 didn't give them a mandate for those positions.
The only case where Labour's arguably been in breach of their 2017 manifesto in relation to Brexit was in voting for a second referendum last week (the manifesto itself didn't rule that out, but Corbyn did say a few times in interviews during the election campaign that he opposed one).
They will clearly be in breach if they support any measure that means we stay in the EU.
Hunt might be planning a bait and switch on No Dealers if he comes into power, but he's definitely in the hardline camp on Europe right now in the cabinet I think.
God, him and Sajid Javid are such idiots.
Atleast the likes of Leadsom and Davis genuinely believe the nonsense they come out with.
Agreed. Ok, lots of politicians, well, play politics even with stuff like this, but those two have been particualrly blatant in it.
You want the Tory manifesto because they lost seats to Labour...
Do you understand how elections work?
I want the Tory manifesto because the Tories are in Gov so your question is one for you to answer.
Manifestos require legislative action. The people who published the manifesto do not command a majority in the legislature. As a result they cannot pass all the legislation required to fulfil the manifesto and therefore need to find alternatives. Is that so hard to understand?
It is an argument that collapses entirely when over 80% of the legislature in question included the same promise in their manifestos.
That is possibly the most disingenuous thing you have ever posted and that is saying something. Both manifestos committed to leaving the EU. That is where the similarities end. Nothing in the Labour manifesto commits it to supporting May’s deal - indeed its opposition to a “damaging Tory Brexit” suggests the opposite. Mr Andy was saying that this MP should support May’s deal rather than the alternative option he had put forward. I was saying that there is no need. There is no detailed proposal on the table that “80% of the legislature” supported in a manifesto.
You want the Tory manifesto because they lost seats to Labour...
Do you understand how elections work?
I want the Tory manifesto because the Tories are in Gov so your question is one for you to answer.
Manifestos require legislative action. The people who published the manifesto do not command a majority in the legislature. As a result they cannot pass all the legislation required to fulfil the manifesto and therefore need to find alternatives. Is that so hard to understand?
It is an argument that collapses entirely when over 80% of the legislature in question included the same promise in their manifestos.
Could you find me where in the Labour manifesto it commits to voting for May's deal, or where it commits to leaving by 29 March 2019?
That is not the argument. Neither of those are problematic. What would be a clear breach is if they support cancelling Brexit. They have obviously not done it yet so there is justifiable criticism. If we do not leave and they have facilitated that then that changes. The same applies to anyone on the Tory side with the exception of Ken Clarke.
You want the Tory manifesto because they lost seats to Labour...
Do you understand how elections work?
I want the Tory manifesto because the Tories are in Gov so your question is one for you to answer.
Manifestos require legislative action. The people who published the manifesto do not command a majority in the legislature. As a result they cannot pass all the legislation required to fulfil the manifesto and therefore need to find alternatives. Is that so hard to understand?
It is an argument that collapses entirely when over 80% of the legislature in question included the same promise in their manifestos.
But it was perhaps inevitable that the losers (in this case Labour) would insist that the Brexit they were promising is different from the one that the winners promised. Hence stalemate. Frankly, Labour have been very clever/naughty (depending on your point of view) in using this stalemate to leverage an early general election (at the expense of trashing the UK's reputation - it seems that's okay to Corbyn as long as the Tories get the blame). They haven't succeeded yet (in forcing an election) but it's only a matter of time.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Not at all. They wisely took his advice in 2015. Then they very unwisely failed to take his advice in 2016.
You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting WW2. Noble, but somewhat out of touch. Cameron really doesn’t deserve your continued loyalty.
I don't have any loyalty to him. I simply reckon that he was the best PM (bar the very special case of Maggie) of the half-century I've been following politics, and the fact that voters chose to ignore his advice, with bad or perhaps disastrous consequences, doesn't alter that observation; if anything it tends to support it. After all, if the shareholders in a company perversely decide to sack the MD and go for a completely different strategy, for no good reason, with the result that the company which was previously doing well gets into trouble, who do you blame? Not the ex-MD, that's for sure.
You want the Tory manifesto because they lost seats to Labour...
Do you understand how elections work?
I want the Tory manifesto because the Tories are in Gov so your question is one for you to answer.
Manifestos require legislative action. The people who published the manifesto do not command a majority in the legislature. As a result they cannot pass all the legislation required to fulfil the manifesto and therefore need to find alternatives. Is that so hard to understand?
It is an argument that collapses entirely when over 80% of the legislature in question included the same promise in their manifestos.
Could you find me where in the Labour manifesto it commits to voting for May's deal, or where it commits to leaving by 29 March 2019?
That is not the argument. Neither of those are problematic. What would be a clear breach is if they support cancelling Brexit. They have obviously not done it yet so there is justifiable criticism. If we do not leave and they have facilitated that then that changes. The same applies to anyone on the Tory side with the exception of Ken Clarke.
No one in that specific sub-thread was talking about “cancelling Brexit”.
What a stupid headline. What, the no deal that is causing very senior figures to say they'll resign won't?
And these same people are the ones privately leaking to journalists about how May is mad in bringing her deal back all the time probably. And it is a bad move, but when both sides are constantly saying doing anything will cause a split and destroy the party no wonder she keeps trying the thing that has at least kept most of them in Cabinte so far.
Gods, the Tories really have pushed their party games far too far. What price would they have the country pay rather than compromise with people in their own goddamn party?
Good night all. Hopefully Prime Minster Letwin will see us on a better path this week.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Not at all. They wisely took his advice in 2015. Then they very unwisely failed to take his advice in 2016.
You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting WW2. Noble, but somewhat out of touch. Cameron really doesn’t deserve your continued loyalty.
I don't have any loyalty to him. I simply reckon that he was the best PM (bar the very special case of Maggie) of the half-century I've been following politics, and the fact that voters chose to ignore his advice, with bad or perhaps disastrous consequences, doesn't alter that observation; if anything it tends to support it. After all, if the shareholders in a company perversely decide to sack the MD and go for a completely different strategy, for no good reason, with the result that the company which was previously doing well gets into trouble, who do you blame? Not the ex-MD, that's for sure.
Cameron made two big mistakes. Gambling the future of the country for short term party advantage and then believing his own hype that he could talk his way through the EU negotiations and referendum. He should have faced down his nutters, but gave into them. He is beneath contempt.
You want the Tory manifesto because they lost seats to Labour...
Do you understand how elections work?
I want the Tory manifesto because the Tories are in Gov so your question is one for you to answer.
Manifestos require legislative action. The people who published the manifesto do not command a majority in the legislature. As a result they cannot pass all the legislation required to fulfil the manifesto and therefore need to find alternatives. Is that so hard to understand?
It is an argument that collapses entirely when over 80% of the legislature in question included the same promise in their manifestos.
That is possibly the most disingenuous thing you have ever posted and that is saying something. Both manifestos committed to leaving the EU. That is where the similarities end. Nothing in the Labour manifesto commits it to supporting May’s deal - indeed its opposition to a “damaging Tory Brexit” suggests the opposite. Mr Andy was saying that this MP should support May’s deal rather than the alternative option he had put forward. I was saying that there is no need. There is no detailed proposal on the table that “80% of the legislature” supported in a manifesto.
I made no mention of them supporting May's deal. Nor do I have any problem if they do not. So long as in the end they support some form of Brexit. That is what they and the Tories both committed to and what they should be held to.
So please keep your faux outrage to yourself. It fools no one.
I don't have any loyalty to him. I simply reckon that he was the best PM (bar the very special case of Maggie) of the half-century I've been following politics, and the fact that voters chose to ignore his advice, with bad or perhaps disastrous consequences, doesn't alter that observation; if anything it tends to support it. After all, if the shareholders in a company perversely decide to sack the MD and go for a completely different strategy, for no good reason, with the result that the company which was previously doing well gets into trouble, who do you blame? Not the ex-MD, that's for sure.
Maybe worth mentioning that the MD had spent the previous 10 years suggesting the original strategy was terrible, and desperately needed changing, and he would change it, then totally failed to change it in any meaningful way, but suddenly appealed to the shareholders to keep it.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Had Cameron simply won most seats again and not won quite as many LD seats as he did which gave him an overall majority in 2015 he would have remained PM as head of the Coalition with Clegg staying on as DPM, there would have been no EUref in 2015 and Cameron would probably still be PM today. PM Miliband though would have had a far more unstable confidence and supply arrangement with the SNP and faced opposition from the left to any plans he had to cut the deficit.
So Cameron might well have been right, just not in the way he intended.
If English MPs alone had voted on May's Deal last week it would have passed 266 for, 256 against and we would now be ready to Leave the EU on the basis of the WA
ENGLAND: 266 MPs for, 256 MPs against (51%-49%) SCOTLAND: 13 for, 45 against (22%-78%) WALES: 6 for, 33 against (15%-85%) NORTHERN IRELAND: 1 for, 10 against (9%-91%)
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Not at all. They wisely took his advice in 2015. Then they very unwisely failed to take his advice in 2016.
You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting WW2. Noble, but somewhat out of touch. Cameron really doesn’t deserve your continued loyalty.
I don't have any loyalty to him. I simply reckon that he was the best PM (bar the very special case of Maggie) of the half-century I've been following politics, and the fact that voters chose to ignore his advice, with bad or perhaps disastrous consequences, doesn't alter that observation; if anything it tends to support it. After all, if the shareholders in a company perversely decide to sack the MD and go for a completely different strategy, for no good reason, with the result that the company which was previously doing well gets into trouble, who do you blame? Not the ex-MD, that's for sure.
Cameron made two big mistakes. Gambling the future of the country for short term party advantage and then believing his own hype that he could talk his way through the EU negotiations and referendum. He should have faced down his nutters, but gave into them. He is beneath contempt.
If Brown hadn't reneged on Labour's 2005 manifesto commitment to a referendum, he wouldn't have had to. It might suit some people to pretend that our relationship with Europe is solely a Tory party obsession, but the fact that Blair and Brown felt the need to include that promise fourteen years ago shows otherwise.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Not at all. They wisely took his advice in 2015. Then they very unwisely failed to take his advice in 2016.
You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting WW2. Noble, but somewhat out of touch. Cameron really doesn’t deserve your continued loyalty.
I don't have any loyalty to him. I simply reckon that he was the best PM (bar the very special case of Maggie) of the half-century I've been following politics, and the fact that voters chose to ignore his advice, with bad or perhaps disastrous consequences, doesn't alter that observation; if anything it tends to support it. After all, if the shareholders in a company perversely decide to sack the MD and go for a completely different strategy, for no good reason, with the result that the company which was previously doing well gets into trouble, who do you blame? Not the ex-MD, that's for sure.
Cameron made two big mistakes. Gambling the future of the country for short term party advantage and then believing his own hype that he could talk his way through the EU negotiations and referendum. He should have faced down his nutters, but gave into them. He is beneath contempt.
If Brown hadn't reneged on Labour's 2005 manifesto commitment to a referendum, he wouldn't have had to. It might suit some people to pretend that our relationship with Europe is solely a Tory party obsession, but the fact that Blair and Brown felt the need to include that promise fourteen years ago shows otherwise.
The issue of EU trade goes away of we are in the Single Market. And without the issues of 3rd party tariff free access. That is why EFTA countries have never joined a customs union with the EU. It is truly the dumbest idea known to man.
It is also why the EFTA route is by far the most sensible. As some of us have been saying for the last 4 or more years.
I don't understand this obsession with a customs union either. On its own it doesn't solve NI. Surely an eventual free trade agreement does everything the custom union does but without the restrictions and loss of sovereignty?
You remind me of one of those Japanese soldiers still fighting WW2. Noble, but somewhat out of touch. Cameron really doesn’t deserve your continued loyalty.
I don't have any loyalty to him. I simply reckon that he was the best PM (bar the very special case of Maggie) of the half-century I've been following politics, and the fact that voters chose to ignore his advice, with bad or perhaps disastrous consequences, doesn't alter that observation; if anything it tends to support it. After all, if the shareholders in a company perversely decide to sack the MD and go for a completely different strategy, for no good reason, with the result that the company which was previously doing well gets into trouble, who do you blame? Not the ex-MD, that's for sure.
Cameron made two big mistakes. Gambling the future of the country for short term party advantage and then believing his own hype that he could talk his way through the EU negotiations and referendum. He should have faced down his nutters, but gave into them. He is beneath contempt.
If Brown hadn't reneged on Labour's 2005 manifesto commitment to a referendum, he wouldn't have had to. It might suit some people to pretend that our relationship with Europe is solely a Tory party obsession, but the fact that Blair and Brown felt the need to include that promise fourteen years ago shows otherwise.
Blair not Brown.
Either way. Blair was PM going in to the election, but everyone knew he was stepping down for Brown at some point during the next Parliament. Brown was the one who eventually signed Lisbon, so I'm more than happy giving him the blame.
The issue of EU trade goes away of we are in the Single Market. And without the issues of 3rd party tariff free access. That is why EFTA countries have never joined a customs union with the EU. It is truly the dumbest idea known to man.
It is also why the EFTA route is by far the most sensible. As some of us have been saying for the last 4 or more years.
I don't understand this obsession with a customs union either. On its own it doesn't solve NI. Surely an eventual free trade agreement does everything the custom union does but without the restrictions and loss of sovereignty?
What am I missing?
Nothing as far as I can see. You are absolutely right. It is a very bad route to take whether you are a Remain or a Leave supporter. Unless of course one is part of that small but vociferous bunch of nutters who want to see Brexit happen and fail disastrously as some sort of punishment for having dared to challenge the EU hegemony.
The issue of EU trade goes away of we are in the Single Market. And without the issues of 3rd party tariff free access. That is why EFTA countries have never joined a customs union with the EU. It is truly the dumbest idea known to man.
It is also why the EFTA route is by far the most sensible. As some of us have been saying for the last 4 or more years.
I don't understand this obsession with a customs union either. On its own it doesn't solve NI. Surely an eventual free trade agreement does everything the custom union does but without the restrictions and loss of sovereignty?
What am I missing?
Nothing as far as I can see. You are absolutely right. It is a very bad route to take whether you are a Remain or a Leave supporter. Unless of course one is part of that small but vociferous bunch of nutters who want to see Brexit happen and fail disastrously as some sort of punishment for having dared to challenge the EU hegemony.
I'm convinced that either MPs don't know what they are voting for, or are deliberately choosing something that they know Theresa May can't agree to but looks a bit like Brexit.
Someone should grill a few on what they think a customs union actually is.
EFTA is however a perfectly reasonable compromise position.
Doesn’t feel all that rescued to me. Feels like they flushed it down the shitter in pursuit of short term party unity, resting problems we didn’t have. I will give you that Osborne was better than Cameron.
You are confusing Cameron and Osborne with the electorate. It was the choice of the electorate - against the very, very strong advice of Cameron and Osbrorne (and in the midst of near-silence from Labour) - to take us out of the EU. Big mistake, but let's put the blame for the mistake where it belongs - with those who made it. And then the same electorate converted the mistake into a disaster by electing a parliament incapable of implementing their previous decision.
Had Cameron simply won most seats again and not won quite as many LD seats as he did which gave him an overall majority in 2015 he would have remained PM as head of the Coalition with Clegg staying on as DPM, there would have been no EUref in 2015 and Cameron would probably still be PM today. PM Miliband though would have had a far more unstable confidence and supply arrangement with the SNP and faced opposition from the left to any plans he had to cut the deficit.
So Cameron might well have been right, just not in the way he intended.
Being right but only in some counterfactual imaginary world that never came to pass is more commonly known as being wrong
The issue of EU trade goes away of we are in the Single Market. And without the issues of 3rd party tariff free access. That is why EFTA countries have never joined a customs union with the EU. It is truly the dumbest idea known to man.
It is also why the EFTA route is by far the most sensible. As some of us have been saying for the last 4 or more years.
I don't understand this obsession with a customs union either. On its own it doesn't solve NI. Surely an eventual free trade agreement does everything the custom union does but without the restrictions and loss of sovereignty?
What am I missing?
Nothing as far as I can see. You are absolutely right. It is a very bad route to take whether you are a Remain or a Leave supporter. Unless of course one is part of that small but vociferous bunch of nutters who want to see Brexit happen and fail disastrously as some sort of punishment for having dared to challenge the EU hegemony.
I'm convinced that either MPs don't know what they are voting for, or are deliberately choosing something that they know Theresa May can't agree to but looks a bit like Brexit.
Someone should grill a few on what they think a customs union actually is.
EFTA is however a perfectly reasonable compromise position.
Except it has free movement, hence Labour MPs from Leave seats are more likely to back a Customs Union than EFTA. Indeed perhaps surprisingly Deltapoll today had more Tory voters favouring a Customs Union than EFTA too and May's Deal plus Customs Union was the most favoured option for voters as a whole on a net basis followed by Common Market 2.0 which is EEA and a temporary Customs Union but aiming to move to EFTA.
Personally I think EFTA is the best long term solution but the free movement issue may mean it is not on the cards for a few more years until EU migration to the UK has fallen further
The issue of EU trade goes away of we are in the Single Market. And without the issues of 3rd party tariff free access. That is why EFTA countries have never joined a customs union with the EU. It is truly the dumbest idea known to man.
It is also why the EFTA route is by far the most sensible. As some of us have been saying for the last 4 or more years.
I don't understand this obsession with a customs union either. On its own it doesn't solve NI. Surely an eventual free trade agreement does everything the custom union does but without the restrictions and loss of sovereignty?
What am I missing?
Nothing as far as I can see. You are absolutely right. It is a very bad route to take whether you are a Remain or a Leave supporter. Unless of course one is part of that small but vociferous bunch of nutters who want to see Brexit happen and fail disastrously as some sort of punishment for having dared to challenge the EU hegemony.
I'm convinced that either MPs don't know what they are voting for, or are deliberately choosing something that they know Theresa May can't agree to but looks a bit like Brexit.
Someone should grill a few on what they think a customs union actually is.
EFTA is however a perfectly reasonable compromise position.
Except it has free movement, hence Labour MPs from Leave seats are more likely to back a Customs Union than EFTA. Indeed perhaps surprisingly Deltapoll today had more Tory voters favouring a Customs Union than EFTA too and May's Deal plus Customs Union was the most favoured option for voters as a whole on a net basis followed by Common Market 2.0 which is EEA and a temporary Customs Union but aiming to move to EFTA.
Personally I think EFTA is the best long term solution but the free issue may mean it is not on the cards for a few more years until EU migration to the UK has fallen further
EFTA might appeal to the liberal middle classes with their Eastern Europe hired help who want to retire to the Algarve or Tuscany - but for Labour MPs in leave leaning seats (and most Tory MPs too) ending freedom of movement is what their working class and C2 voters care about.
May's deal plus a customs union - however much a bad idea - allows that promise to end FOM in its current form to be delivered. EFTA - unless perhaps we can develop Iceland and Norway's extremely high cost of living (which makes it hard for new arrivals on low incomes to survive) - does not.
In reality of course we already have control over non EU immigration - and supposedly hardline Theresa May has been unable to reduce that in any meaningful way.
The issue of EU trade goes away of we are in the Single Market. And without the issues of 3rd party tariff free access. That is why EFTA countries have never joined a customs union with the EU. It is truly the dumbest idea known to man.
It is also why the EFTA route is by far the most sensible. As some of us have been saying for the last 4 or more years.
I don't understand this obsession with a customs union either. On its own it doesn't solve NI. Surely an eventual free trade agreement does everything the custom union does but without the restrictions and loss of sovereignty?
What am I missing?
The key word is “eventual”. It will take 5-10 years to agree
Comments
TM resigning does not address the legislation required
She will say another leader needs to reset the negotiations and will ask for an extension till the end of the year . Her going will diffuse the situation re a longer delay . The Tories will stomach a longer extension if May goes soon.
Remember even when Peel's supporters defected from the Tories after the Commons voted to repeal the Corn Laws ultimately to form the Liberals with the Whigs the Tory Party remained in the form of the protectionist majority of the Party
Just where do you think the legislation to stop no deal and indeed for the HOc to approve EU elections is coming from in just 12 days
Futhermore any extension has to have a majority HOC view for the EU to consider it
Indeed it may just be we run out of legislative time
Also TM will not agree a CU, so it is her WDA or no deal happens by default on the 12th April
May knows that too hence she has said she will never allow No Deal unless the Commons votes for it. If the Commons votes for a CU tomorrow I suspect May will then put up her Deal as is v her Deal with a CU and say she will implement whatever of the 2 the Commons votes for and stay PM to then sign off with the EU and see the WA with or without a CU in the PD get royal assent.
However she will step down as Tory leader as soon as the WA with or without a CU passes the Commons giving the Tories a few months to have a leadership contest before she finally steps down as PM
🎤 And I would vote 500 times
And I would vote 500 more 🎤
Choices, choices, choices...
(Telegraph)
Is anyone still listening to this pseudo-Edwardian jingoist crap anymore?
Sadly, probably the answer is yes, but only Tory members.
Fox is petrified that his disastrous tenure at DfIT is about to bite him in the arse.
Rawnesley's lengthy tome The End Of The Party documents the episode well.
The rest of his Premiership may have been crap, but his handling of the financial crisis was a triumph.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-led-tory-party-will-defeat-revolutionary-labour-at-next-election-tony-blair-warns_uk_5ca0e243e4b0474c08d02dde?utm_hp_ref=uk-politics
In my weaker moments, I half wish we would No Deal, just so the Brexiteers will get what they want and then the Tory party will be destroyed.
Overall, about 4/10.
They abstained on Common Market 2.0 last time .
I like to think of Brown and Blair as reverse images of each other. Blair was imo a pretty good PM overall with one appalling policy that defined him as a failure. Brown was a crap PM with one defining success.
Would make a good essay topic that!
I am truly amazed you cannot hear how utterly disingenuous and unprincipled these statements sound to normal non political people.
This is one of the reasons both Europhiles and politicians in general are held in such contempt. Because no matter what the argument they will try and find some way to justify their perfidy.
I'd start with the EU and work my way through quite a few institutions and individuals before I got down to me and thee.
https://twitter.com/Brigid_Fowler/status/1112296108670226432
https://twitter.com/david_cameron/status/595112367358406656?s=21
Karma
Michael Fabricant"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/31/conservatives-must-back-no-deal-sorry-botched-brexit-wont-win/
Beyond that, yes, there are lots of politicians and others who made mistakes in the lead-up to the referendum, and in the negotiations afterwards. But the electorate are not children. No-one forced them to vote as they voted, and if you support democracy, then you support the view that the electorate get to decide. Well they did get to decide - and therefore they are responsible for their decisions. They, and not ultimately the politicians.
Nite Richard, nite everybody.
It is also why the EFTA route is by far the most sensible. As some of us have been saying for the last 4 or more years.
And these same people are the ones privately leaking to journalists about how May is mad in bringing her deal back all the time probably. And it is a bad move, but when both sides are constantly saying doing anything will cause a split and destroy the party no wonder she keeps trying the thing that has at least kept most of them in Cabinte so far.
Gods, the Tories really have pushed their party games far too far. What price would they have the country pay rather than compromise with people in their own goddamn party?
Good night all. Hopefully Prime Minster Letwin will see us on a better path this week.
I made no mention of them supporting May's deal. Nor do I have any problem if they do not. So long as in the end they support some form of Brexit. That is what they and the Tories both committed to and what they should be held to.
So please keep your faux outrage to yourself. It fools no one.
So Cameron might well have been right, just not in the way he intended.
What am I missing?
Someone should grill a few on what they think a customs union actually is.
EFTA is however a perfectly reasonable compromise position.
Personally I think EFTA is the best long term solution but the free movement issue may mean it is not on the cards for a few more years until EU migration to the UK has fallen further
May's deal plus a customs union - however much a bad idea - allows that promise to end FOM in its current form to be delivered. EFTA - unless perhaps we can develop Iceland and Norway's extremely high cost of living (which makes it hard for new arrivals on low incomes to survive) - does not.
In reality of course we already have control over non EU immigration - and supposedly hardline Theresa May has been unable to reduce that in any meaningful way.