I would question the rather pointed and apparent consensus here about Corbyn and McDonnell somehow ending democracy in Britain. Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite, and as a result any more extreme policies than their not particularly extreme 2017 manifesto are likely to be unstable, precarious and short-lived.
I would think a more likely result is a second leader in the wake of that crisis, able to unite the right and left of the party, like Miliband or Starmer.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
The assumption here seems to be that if you do what the hard-brexit people want, they'll stick with you and support you. What you're missing is that you can do what Farage wants, the consequences be bad, and he'll blame the outcome on your incompetence, find a nationalist cause you're not prepared to follow like opposition to trade deals you try to make to mitigate the damage, and continue sucking up your support. Only this time, the hard-brexit people whose support he's sucking up are all you've got left...
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
You wish.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
The party is effectively split now.
The way it is behaving is making a Marxist-led government ever more likely. A Corbyn government inside the EU is one thing. One outside it is very much worse. One taking power in the aftermath of a messy No Deal exit, which is where the Tories are headed , will be interesting - and not in a good way.
The Tories - foolishly in my view - seem to think that Corbyn is the reason Labour won’t get into power. And yet everything they are doing makes it more likely that he will.
There are a lot more people who are both centre-right, and in favour of Brexit, than people who are centre-right and opposed to it, so the Conservatives will favour the former over the latter, if they have to.
How many voters on the centre-right favour a No Deal Brexit? How many will continue to favour it once they start suffering its consequences?
I would question the rather pointed and apparent consensus here about Corbyn and McDonnell somehow ending democracy in Britain. Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite, and as a result any more extreme policies than their not particularly extreme 2017 manifesto are likely to be unstable, precarious and short-lived.
I would think a more likely result is a second leader in the wake of that crisis, able to unite the right and left of the party, like Miliband or Starmer.
"Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite"
Could you expand on that, and let us know who the members of the college will be?
I would question the rather pointed and apparent consensus here about Corbyn and McDonnell somehow ending democracy in Britain. Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite, and as a result any more extreme policies than their not particularly extreme 2017 manifesto are likely to be unstable, precarious and short-lived.
I would think a more likely result is a second leader in the wake of that crisis, able to unite the right and left of the party, like Miliband or Starmer.
Two points: their version of democracy is likely to be very different to what we have had up until now. Their 2017 manifesto was not particularly extreme at all. But McDonnell has already said that the next one will likely be very much more radical.
I would question the rather pointed and apparent consensus here about Corbyn and McDonnell somehow ending democracy in Britain. Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite, and as a result any more extreme policies than their not particularly extreme 2017 manifesto are likely to be unstable, precarious and short-lived.
I would think a more likely result is a second leader in the wake of that crisis, able to unite the right and left of the party, like Miliband or Starmer.
"Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite"
Could you expand on that, and let us know who the members of the college will be?
Corbyn's never been tested in the real exercise of power. He's intellectually incurious and inflexible, but it strikes me as incredibly unlikely that his response to adversity would be directly dictatorial, either in his party or the country ; I'm less sure about McDonnell on that front, and the clash would make it unstable. Holding out and ignoring dissent in your party isn't the same as the demands that national power exerts on your personality.
I would question the rather pointed and apparent consensus here about Corbyn and McDonnell somehow ending democracy in Britain. Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite, and as a result any more extreme policies than their not particularly extreme 2017 manifesto are likely to be unstable, precarious and short-lived.
I would think a more likely result is a second leader in the wake of that crisis, able to unite the right and left of the party, like Miliband or Starmer.
"Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite"
Could you expand on that, and let us know who the members of the college will be?
Corbyn's never been tested in the real exercise of power. He's intellectually incurious and inflexible, but it strikes me as incredibly unlikely that his response to adversity would be directly dictatorial, either in his party or the country ; I'm less sure about McDonnell on that front, and the clash would make it unstable. Holding out and ignoring dissent in your party isn't the same as the demands that national power exerts on your personality.
McDonnell is far more dangerous than Corbyn. He isn't a moron, has more extreme views and is willing to say whatever is required.
There seems to be a suggestion that TMay might make MV4 a vote between a GE and the Deal. She’s doomed to lose if that’s the case. The DUP won’t back it, and Labour backbenchers won’t vote against a GE.
Surely it is becoming inevitable that we will have to have a vote of some sort? That’s the only way the Tory Party might, just might, be held together in the medium to long term. Possibly a CU vs Deal referendum? That might just scrape through the House....
I would question the rather pointed and apparent consensus here about Corbyn and McDonnell somehow ending democracy in Britain. Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite, and as a result any more extreme policies than their not particularly extreme 2017 manifesto are likely to be unstable, precarious and short-lived.
I would think a more likely result is a second leader in the wake of that crisis, able to unite the right and left of the party, like Miliband or Starmer.
"Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite"
Could you expand on that, and let us know who the members of the college will be?
Corbyn's never been tested in the exercise of power. He's intellectually incurious and inflexible, but it strikes me as incredibly unlikely that his response to adversity would be directly dictatorial, either in his party or the country ; I'm less sure about McDonnell on that front, and the clash would make it unstable. Holding out and ignoring dissent in your party isn't the same as the demands that national power exerts on your personality.
I can't see Corbyn having much of a plan for anything. He's just a protestor at heart.
I think he'd let Milne and McDonnell run the show.
That might not be stable if there are any sensible MPs left in the Labour party.
There seems to be a suggestion that TMay might make MV4 a vote between a GE and the Deal. She’s doomed to lose if that’s the case. The DUP won’t back it, and Labour backbenchers won’t vote against a GE.
Surely it is becoming inevitable that we will have to have a vote of some sort? That’s the only way the Tory Party might, just might, be held together in the medium to long term. Possibly a CU vs Deal referendum? That might just scrape through the House....
A referendum has to involve more than two options IMO. Otherwise a lot of people will be disenchanted with the process.
There seems to be a suggestion that TMay might make MV4 a vote between a GE and the Deal. She’s doomed to lose if that’s the case. The DUP won’t back it, and Labour backbenchers won’t vote against a GE.
Surely it is becoming inevitable that we will have to have a vote of some sort? That’s the only way the Tory Party might, just might, be held together in the medium to long term. Possibly a CU vs Deal referendum? That might just scrape through the House....
A referendum has to involve more than two options IMO. Otherwise a lot of people will be disenchanted with the process.
How many voters on the centre-right favour a No Deal Brexit? How many will continue to favour it once they start suffering its consequences?
And more importantly, how many will *support the government* once they start suffering its consequences. It's psychologically hard to shift from "we should do x" to "we shouldn't have done x", but dead easy to shift to "this incompetent government has made an unbelievable mess of x".
That's what we saw with Iraq: It took 5 or 10 years for most of the people who backed it to start saying it was a mistake, but for a long time nearly all the people who'd supported it would have told you how disastrous the implementation was.
Unfairly but inevitably, the people who wanted No Deal will desert the Tories and support Farage or similar.
How many voters on the centre-right favour a No Deal Brexit? How many will continue to favour it once they start suffering its consequences?
And more importantly, how many will *support the government* once they start suffering its consequences. It's psychologically hard to shift from "we should do x" to "we shouldn't have done x", but dead easy to shift to "this incompetent government has made an unbelievable mess of x".
That's what we saw with Iraq: It took 5 or 10 years for most of the people who backed it to start saying it was a mistake, but for a long time nearly all the people who'd supported it would have told you how disastrous the implementation was.
Unfairly but inevitably, the people who wanted No Deal will desert the Tories and support Farage or similar.
How many voters on the centre-right favour a No Deal Brexit? How many will continue to favour it once they start suffering its consequences?
And more importantly, how many will *support the government* once they start suffering its consequences. It's psychologically hard to shift from "we should do x" to "we shouldn't have done x", but dead easy to shift to "this incompetent government has made an unbelievable mess of x".
That's what we saw with Iraq: It took 5 or 10 years for most of the people who backed it to start saying it was a mistake, but for a long time nearly all the people who'd supported it would have told you how disastrous the implementation was.
Unfairly but inevitably, the people who wanted No Deal will desert the Tories and support Farage or similar.
What if they don't suffer adverse consequences?
If it all goes great then the party that does it will be fine.
I must say that I find it difficult to see how MP's can abstain, apparently on the grounds that that the shade of whatever version of sky-blue pink on offer isn't QUITE blue or pink enough.
On a happier note the operation which I had almost two weeks ago seems to have freed up my legs, although of course the healing process is by no means completed. Walked to (and from) the pub last Sunday evening with none of my previous discomfort!
Really pleased to hear that.
+1, that's great! And I agree it's ridiculous that MPs abstain on all this. I see the LibDems split on customs union: 1 for, 5 against and 5 including Vince Cable (and I think both leadership candidates) abstaining. Meh. Why is anyone puzzled that the party isn't benefiting from the current mess?
How many voters on the centre-right favour a No Deal Brexit? How many will continue to favour it once they start suffering its consequences?
And more importantly, how many will *support the government* once they start suffering its consequences. It's psychologically hard to shift from "we should do x" to "we shouldn't have done x", but dead easy to shift to "this incompetent government has made an unbelievable mess of x".
That's what we saw with Iraq: It took 5 or 10 years for most of the people who backed it to start saying it was a mistake, but for a long time nearly all the people who'd supported it would have told you how disastrous the implementation was.
Unfairly but inevitably, the people who wanted No Deal will desert the Tories and support Farage or similar.
What if they don't suffer adverse consequences?
If it all goes great then the party that does it will be fine.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
Assume your soft Brexit deal was the same as Cameron's deal except we were officially 'out'. How could a future government change it without the agreement of the EU27?
Go to no deal if they won’t agree? If Gerard Batten became PM you think our relationship with the EU would stay as it was if if we left with Mays deal?
I am only a leaver because being in the EU means FOM, I’d we could’ve opted out of that I’d have voted Remain.
A deal based on membership of the EU has a route to 'No Deal' within 2 years by invoking Article 50. Has invoking it unlocked hitherto untapped negotiating leverage for the UK, or has it done the opposite?
If you're only a leaver because of free movement, would you still think Brexit was worth it if the UK ends up with a relationship in which there is free movement?
Yes because the door is open to no FOM
Is it though? If it's not negotiable in isolation, all you'll have achieved is put the UK in a weaker position.
UKIP being on the ballot paper as “UKIP Make Brexit Happen” is interesting. Could get them some last minute converts.
It should be a very easy Labour hold.
On paper it ought to be...but the political times are quite Sui Generis. Almost anything could happen. Am not touching it all. Especially as their has been precious little reporting and no polling.
Varadkar is in real crisis as he must answer the question what he does when the EU put in place their border on the 13th April post no deal
In addition it may not be known here but he is in serious trouble with his fishermen
Kudos to him, he used his position to try to get to meet Kylie Minogue.
Not sure I understand your point Alastair
Furthermore, the IREXIT freedom party are growing and support the fishermen
Have you got any recent polling on the popularity of Irexit? Last time I saw the Irish were favouring staying in the EU by about 90% to 10%.
Big G has transposed the British/Scottish relationship with fishing wherein a tiny amount of the electorate & even tinier percentage of industrial output exerts a disproportionate influence on UK politics. I would be surprised if the same anomaly exists in Ireland.
Not really. There is an Irish specific fight going on between the Irish fishing industry and the Irish government who are taking the side of EU fishermen, inflaming anger in the 1.4 billion euros per annum industry
Aren't Irish fishermen also EU fishermen? What specific side is Varadkar taking?
I believe (as with the UK) that the EU is Ireland's main export market for seafood. What do Irish fishermen think should be done to protect that market?
I am not into the detail but the Irish Fisherman seem to be disadvantaged in their own waters
I must say that I find it difficult to see how MP's can abstain, apparently on the grounds that that the shade of whatever version of sky-blue pink on offer isn't QUITE blue or pink enough.
On a happier note the operation which I had almost two weeks ago seems to have freed up my legs, although of course the healing process is by no means completed. Walked to (and from) the pub last Sunday evening with none of my previous discomfort!
Really pleased to hear that.
+1, that's great! And I agree it's ridiculous that MPs abstain on all this. I see the LibDems split on customs union: 1 for, 5 against and 5 including Vince Cable (and I think both leadership candidates) abstaining. Meh. Why is anyone puzzled that the party isn't benefiting from the current mess?
Layla Moran abstained, Jo Swinson and Ed Davey voted against. Same for CM 2.0.
If there's a third Indicative Vote I'd expect Moran, at least, to vote for the rumoured composite option.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
You wish.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Yes, if it's people from Goldman Sachs complaining, it will be very popular.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Leavers unimpressed by angry Provence second home whingers. They are gonna need plenty of broken from Bradford horror stories and not so many well spoken teen can't study Art History in Hamburg chucklethons
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
That's unlikely to satisfy the EU, however. They've often indicated they'd like some process-driven reason for delay, namely the much-discussed election or referendum, and a tory leadership contest, with all the uncertainty it entails, may simply represent the acme of chaos for them.
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
You wish.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Leavers unimpressed by angry Provence second home whingers. They are gonna need plenty of broken from Bradford horror stories and not so many well spoken teen can't study Art History in Hamburg chucklethons
Right, that's what they'll run, salt-of-the-earth leave voters fucked by the government's failure to plan for xyz.
I think May should probably request an extension, and give her resignation as the reason for it. Labour bods are coming up with the excuse that they don't trust the Gov't as they won't know who is in charge sorted. Well the Tories should have their blood letting now so that can no longer be posted as an objection.
/blockquote>
Fine, they can chuck us out then. The Tories can then change leader and we can get on with trade negotiations - yes I know a sort of backstop will need to be agreed - but it'll get Brexit over the line.
The Tories in their present form would be destroyed by that, ofcourse.
The Tories are going to be destroyed whatever they do. They should, if they have any conscience, do what is best for the country ie what is least bad at this point. Embarking on No Deal is highly risky and potentially very damaging. That is the one thing they should avoid.
I have little faith left that they will act in the country’s interests.
You wish.
If we deliver Brexit, even with some no deal chaos, the party will survive. Perhaps we’ll go down to 35% or even 30% at the next general election, but we will clearly be the second-largest party in Parliament and the Official Opposition. With rebuilding and new leadership, we should be able to seriously challenge Labour after 1 or 2 elections.
If the party splits and we haemorrhage seats a la Canadian Tories in 1993, the path to power gets a lot blurrier and a Marxist-led Labour Party will be guaranteed 15+ years in office. That will inflict far more damage than a no-deal Brexit.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
Twas always the case yet the proportions of votes for right-wing parties in that group have continued to grow.
@bbclaurak Follow Follow @bbclaurak More Whispers this morning that clerks in Commons have made it clear to govt that Bercow would not allow them to bring back the deal for another vote - one source says this is a 'BIG PROBLEM' - with capital letters - BUT Speaker's office says not decided yet - let's see
I would question the rather pointed and apparent consensus here about Corbyn and McDonnell somehow ending democracy in Britain. Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite, and as a result any more extreme policies than their not particularly extreme 2017 manifesto are likely to be unstable, precarious and short-lived.
I would think a more likely result is a second leader in the wake of that crisis, able to unite the right and left of the party, like Miliband or Starmer.
Two points: their version of democracy is likely to be very different to what we have had up until now. Their 2017 manifesto was not particularly extreme at all. But McDonnell has already said that the next one will likely be very much more radical.
I agree in some ways, and there's many excellent points in your header. However, I'd add a key proviso - a climate of populism has emerged since 2016, but I've yet to see how that would drive a Labour government in practice ; your many excellent points seem to me to pertain so far mainly to post-Referendum toryism. There are hints and indications in Labour, but so far only hints, in party management, in simplifying and sometimes ignoring the anti-semitism issue, in what looks like an indulgent attitude to machine politics in deselections. The proof of the pudding would have to be in the eating, both in a manifesto and how labour operated in government.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Leavers unimpressed by angry Provence second home whingers. They are gonna need plenty of broken from Bradford horror stories and not so many well spoken teen can't study Art History in Hamburg chucklethons
I haven't heard, either in real life or the media, any "angry Provence second home whingers" (and it is by no means clear that brexit would hurt them all that much anyway). Have you? As to art history, you do realise that as of the last 30 years the proles go to university too? You really need to overhaul your prejudices.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Yes, if it's people from Goldman Sachs complaining, it will be very popular.
I have to say I was surprised that in this doomsday document to the pm about no deal, it was said food costs would rise by upto 10%. Much that is unwelcome and the poorest would definitely be at the sharp end of that, let's say it's actually 5-6%...I honestly doubt people would notice & certainly no enough for mass riots in Sainsbury's ala Venezuela.
The way it has been hyped up, a bit like the overdone cuts narrative, I think a lot of people are expecting hyperinflation and bread shortages.
I think MPs now have a duty to vote for May's deal to avoid No Deal.
It's as simple as that.
LOL Bercow can't block that as he's allowed Letwin's motion to take over control and it specifically allow motions already rejected by the House to come back.
I would question the rather pointed and apparent consensus here about Corbyn and McDonnell somehow ending democracy in Britain. Corbyn's response to crisis is likely to be collegiate, and McDonnell's the opposite, and as a result any more extreme policies than their not particularly extreme 2017 manifesto are likely to be unstable, precarious and short-lived.
I would think a more likely result is a second leader in the wake of that crisis, able to unite the right and left of the party, like Miliband or Starmer.
Two points: their version of democracy is likely to be very different to what we have had up until now. Their 2017 manifesto was not particularly extreme at all. But McDonnell has already said that the next one will likely be very much more radical.
I agree in some ways, and there's many excellent points in your header. However, I'd add a key proviso - a climate of populism has emerged since 2016, but I've yet to see to what extent that would drive a Labour government in practice ; your many excellent points to me pertain so far to post-Referendum toryism. There hints and indications in Labour, but so far only hints, in party management, in simplifying and sometimes ignoring the anti-semitism issue, in what looks like an indulgent attitude to machine politics in deselections. The proof of the pudding would have to be in the eating, both in a manifesto and how labour operated in government.
And in parliament at least the remainer Tories are almost already a defeated rump, whereas you sense there is fight in the Labour moderates just waiting for the right opportunity.
Assume your soft Brexit deal was the same as Cameron's deal except we were officially 'out'. How could a future government change it without the agreement of the EU27?
Go to no deal if they won’t agree? If Gerard Batten became PM you think our relationship with the EU would stay as it was if if we left with Mays deal?
I am only a leaver because being in the EU means FOM, I’d we could’ve opted out of that I’d have voted Remain.
A deal based on membership of the EU has a route to 'No Deal' within 2 years by invoking Article 50. Has invoking it unlocked hitherto untapped negotiating leverage for the UK, or has it done the opposite?
If you're only a leaver because of free movement, would you still think Brexit was worth it if the UK ends up with a relationship in which there is free movement?
Yes because the door is open to no FOM
Is it though? If it's not negotiable in isolation, all you'll have achieved is put the UK in a weaker position.
I obviously think so. Liechtenstein manage it
And that's why people worry about creating precedents... The situation of Liechtenstein is in no way comparable to the UK.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
Twas always the case yet the proportions of votes for right-wing parties in that group have continued to grow.
It's easy to see why those who get wealthier as they age might become more attracted to the party of the property-owning classes.
It's less easy to see why those who get older would decide that an idea that they thought was batshit mental was in fact not batshit mental.
I think MPs now have a duty to vote for May's deal to avoid No Deal.
It's as simple as that.
They can amend it to make it dependent on a referendum and/or change the political declaration.
How on earth can a referendum amendment be selected two days after being voted down? It couldn't possibly pass.
Amendments can always be selected provided they are to a different substantive. The problem May has is identifying yet another different substantive (one way, of course, being to attach the referendum to it beforehand!).
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
Twas always the case yet the proportions of votes for right-wing parties in that group have continued to grow.
It's easy to see why those who get wealthier as they age might become more attracted to the party of the property-owning classes.
It's less easy to see why those who get older would decide that an idea that they thought was batshit mental was in fact not batshit mental.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Yes, if it's people from Goldman Sachs complaining, it will be very popular.
I have to say I was surprised that in this doomsday document to the pm about no deal, it was said food costs would rise by upto 10%. Much that is unwelcome and the poorest would definitely be at the sharp end of that, let's say it's actually 5-6%...I honestly doubt people would notice & certainly no enough for mass riots in Sainsbury's ala Venezuela.
The way it has been hyped up, a bit like the overdone cuts narrative, I think a lot of people are expecting hyperinflation and bread shortages.
Yes, but. A lot of different people are expecting absolutely no ill effects whatsoever. In fact, quite a few of them are expecting big improvements in all areas of life.
The Conservatives thus face the terrible double prospect of voters shifting away from supporting their central policy, while those who do support it become enraged by the failure to deliver it. That’s why there is nothing guaranteed about having 316 seats in the Commons, nothing at all certain about having a Conservative government, and every possibility of leadership candidates finding they are leading not very much at all.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Yes, if it's people from Goldman Sachs complaining, it will be very popular.
I have to say I was surprised that in this doomsday document to the pm about no deal, it was said food costs would rise by upto 10%. Much that is unwelcome and the poorest would definitely be at the sharp end of that, let's say it's actually 5-6%...I honestly doubt people would notice & certainly no enough for mass riots in Sainsbury's ala Venezuela.
The way it has been hyped up, a bit like the overdone cuts narrative, I think a lot of people are expecting hyperinflation and bread shortages.
Yes, but. A lot of different people are expecting absolutely no ill effects whatsoever. In fact, quite a few of them are expecting big improvements in all areas of life.
I am not sure about that. Stoke man seemed to be more of the attitude of f##k it, its shit, its been shit for ages, its getting shitter, lets knock over the apple cart.
It is why IMO the government narrative about the economic dangers of Brexit didn't cut through there, say compared to the South East.
I think MPs now have a duty to vote for May's deal to avoid No Deal.
It's as simple as that.
They can amend it to make it dependent on a referendum and/or change the political declaration.
How on earth can a referendum amendment be selected two days after being voted down? It couldn't possibly pass.
It could if the payroll was whipped to support it.
Not going to happen IMO
My preference was for Lab and Con to agree 2-3 potential amendments to a final deal MV, let the commons debate and vote and agree upfront to whip whatever ended up as the final motion. CM2, CU and PV. If the deal fails then it's no deal.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Leavers unimpressed by angry Provence second home whingers. They are gonna need plenty of broken from Bradford horror stories and not so many well spoken teen can't study Art History in Hamburg chucklethons
Right, that's what they'll run, salt-of-the-earth leave voters fucked by the government's failure to plan for xyz.
The Conservatives thus face the terrible double prospect of voters shifting away from supporting their central policy, while those who do support it become enraged by the failure to deliver it. That’s why there is nothing guaranteed about having 316 seats in the Commons, nothing at all certain about having a Conservative government, and every possibility of leadership candidates finding they are leading not very much at all.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
Twas always the case yet the proportions of votes for right-wing parties in that group have continued to grow.
It's easy to see why those who get wealthier as they age might become more attracted to the party of the property-owning classes.
It's less easy to see why those who get older would decide that an idea that they thought was batshit mental was in fact not batshit mental.
Experience?
The last couple of years have shown that all the airy generalisations that Leavers went in for before the referendum result were complete horse feathers. All that's happened is that Leavers have got steadily more deranged and extreme.
Now it may be that Remainers are innately superior in intellect and stability to Leavers, but I wouldn't base my predictions on it. People bend the facts to their opinions, not vice versa.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
It would be wall-to-wall "Brexit did this to me" for months on end, regardless of the big picture. If the majority of people aren't really affected this may eventually run out of steam, but I can see it lasting for a considerable time.
I do fear that some people would actively create or allow chaos because they want to be proved right. It is human nature.
No deal is thus not a solution for a stable government, which is why it seems Labour seem to be doing everything they can to encourage it.
Personally I don't think it would be a disaster in the long term but in the world of politics it is how it looks in the short term that counts.
May needs to get her deal through. Maybe a unicorn will appear at the last minute and remove the backstop.
If I was in the ERG I'd be minded to put forward the Common Market 2.0 / Confirmatory referendum with remain on the ballot to err "check" how much support it has in the Commons.
Assume your soft Brexit deal was the same as Cameron's deal except we were officially 'out'. How could a future government change it without the agreement of the EU27?
Go to no deal if they won’t agree? If Gerard Batten became PM you think our relationship with the EU would stay as it was if if we left with Mays deal?
I am only a leaver because being in the EU means FOM, I’d we could’ve opted out of that I’d have voted Remain.
A deal based on membership of the EU has a route to 'No Deal' within 2 years by invoking Article 50. Has invoking it unlocked hitherto untapped negotiating leverage for the UK, or has it done the opposite?
If you're only a leaver because of free movement, would you still think Brexit was worth it if the UK ends up with a relationship in which there is free movement?
Yes because the door is open to no FOM
Is it though? If it's not negotiable in isolation, all you'll have achieved is put the UK in a weaker position.
I obviously think so. Liechtenstein manage it
And that's why people worry about creating precedents... The situation of Liechtenstein is in no way comparable to the UK.
You’re right, but if we had an anti mass immigration government and we’re outside the EU they would fight for such concessions. Anyway if Mays deal passes alls well 👍🏻
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Leavers unimpressed by angry Provence second home whingers. They are gonna need plenty of broken from Bradford horror stories and not so many well spoken teen can't study Art History in Hamburg chucklethons
I haven't heard, either in real life or the media, any "angry Provence second home whingers" (and it is by no means clear that brexit would hurt them all that much anyway). Have you? As to art history, you do realise that as of the last 30 years the proles go to university too? You really need to overhaul your prejudices.
Ffs they are obviously caricatures. Slightly less bland than saying middle class upset will be less effective than working class upset in this regard. People who are reasonably well off dont impress the bulk when complaining about things they can only dream of.
I think MPs now have a duty to vote for May's deal to avoid No Deal.
It's as simple as that.
They can amend it to make it dependent on a referendum and/or change the political declaration.
How on earth can a referendum amendment be selected two days after being voted down? It couldn't possibly pass.
It could if the payroll was whipped to support it.
Not going to happen IMO
My preference was for Lab and Con to agree 2-3 potential amendments to a final deal MV, let the commons debate and vote and agree upfront to whip whatever ended up as the final motion. CM2, CU and PV. If the deal fails then it's no deal.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
Twas always the case yet the proportions of votes for right-wing parties in that group have continued to grow.
It's easy to see why those who get wealthier as they age might become more attracted to the party of the property-owning classes.
It's less easy to see why those who get older would decide that an idea that they thought was batshit mental was in fact not batshit mental.
Experience?
The last couple of years have shown that all the airy generalisations that Leavers went in for before the referendum result were complete horse feathers. All that's happened is that Leavers have got steadily more deranged and extreme.
Now it may be that Remainers are innately superior in intellect and stability to Leavers, but I wouldn't base my predictions on it. People bend the facts to their opinions, not vice versa.
Name one airy generalisation that has categorically been shown to be complete horse feathers.
What has been shown to be complete horse feathers was the Remainers projections for what happens if we vote to leave with the airy generalisation that we'd have an immediate recession and spiking unemployment when in fact the polar opposite happened.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
Twas always the case yet the proportions of votes for right-wing parties in that group have continued to grow.
It's easy to see why those who get wealthier as they age might become more attracted to the party of the property-owning classes.
It's less easy to see why those who get older would decide that an idea that they thought was batshit mental was in fact not batshit mental.
So your original point was mere speculation based upon your opinion of no deal Brexit. That's fine but not the slam dunk the comment implied. Surely in truth much will depend on how unpleasant no deal Brexit will be in practice. The more its ill effects are hyped up by 'remainiacs' - the more likely there will be anti-climax.
I think MPs now have a duty to vote for May's deal to avoid No Deal.
It's as simple as that.
They can amend it to make it dependent on a referendum and/or change the political declaration.
How on earth can a referendum amendment be selected two days after being voted down? It couldn't possibly pass.
It could if the payroll was whipped to support it.
It wouldn't be an amendment then, if would be on the bill
Agree three potential amendments that Lab and Con could accept. Put them to the commons. And whichever (or none) are adopted, agree upfront to whip the resulting motion.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Yes, if it's people from Goldman Sachs complaining, it will be very popular.
I have to say I was surprised that in this doomsday document to the pm about no deal, it was said food costs would rise by upto 10%. Much that is unwelcome and the poorest would definitely be at the sharp end of that, let's say it's actually 5-6%...I honestly doubt people would notice & certainly no enough for mass riots in Sainsbury's ala Venezuela.
The way it has been hyped up, a bit like the overdone cuts narrative, I think a lot of people are expecting hyperinflation and bread shortages.
Yes, but. A lot of different people are expecting absolutely no ill effects whatsoever. In fact, quite a few of them are expecting big improvements in all areas of life.
I am not sure about that. Stoke man seemed to be more of the attitude of f##k it, its shit, its been shit for ages, its getting shitter, lets knock over the apple cart.
It is why IMO the government narrative about the economic dangers of Brexit didn't cut through there, say compared to the South East.
Indeed so. However, if they had expected no change, why turn out in such numbers? The NHS thing cut through. Some are expecting higher benefits, better services, higher paying jobs. The problems of Stoke man, and similar declining small cities/towns, never were about the EU.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
Twas always the case yet the proportions of votes for right-wing parties in that group have continued to grow.
It's easy to see why those who get wealthier as they age might become more attracted to the party of the property-owning classes.
It's less easy to see why those who get older would decide that an idea that they thought was batshit mental was in fact not batshit mental.
Experience?
The last couple of years have shown that all the airy generalisations that Leavers went in for before the referendum result were complete horse feathers. All that's happened is that Leavers have got steadily more deranged and extreme.
Now it may be that Remainers are innately superior in intellect and stability to Leavers, but I wouldn't base my predictions on it. People bend the facts to their opinions, not vice versa.
Name one airy generalisation that has categorically been shown to be complete horse feathers.
"We hold all the cards" "They need us more than we need them" "If we vote Leave, we can dictate the terms"
I think MPs now have a duty to vote for May's deal to avoid No Deal.
It's as simple as that.
Yep. If Letwin has thrown in the towel it's over
It has felt like "checkmate" for May and the Tories for a few days now.
But I think the reality is worse - it's checkmate for the whole UK.
It is dawning on me now that we're the proverbial boiling frog. We've just realised we need to leap out of the pan. But we don't now have the means to do so.
It's No Deal, and we're all fucked. There really is no "panic button" option to get us out of it, is there?
Unless the EU panics first and dives in to rescue us.
I would not expect it to go great. But, if it went as Robert Smithson suggests, there would be a lot of people who would not suffer adverse consequences.
That's probably not enough, as the media will run on stuff that went wrong but could have been planned for and had some sympathetic victim, and the government will be hit with this from all kinds of media and every part of the political spectrum from Corbyn to Farage.
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
Yes, if it's people from Goldman Sachs complaining, it will be very popular.
I have to say I was surprised that in this doomsday document to the pm about no deal, it was said food costs would rise by upto 10%. Much that is unwelcome and the poorest would definitely be at the sharp end of that, let's say it's actually 5-6%...I honestly doubt people would notice & certainly no enough for mass riots in Sainsbury's ala Venezuela.
The way it has been hyped up, a bit like the overdone cuts narrative, I think a lot of people are expecting hyperinflation and bread shortages.
Not advocating the benefits of No Deal here, but just as general rule I'm cautious of claims where impact statistics are (a) Quoted as "up to", (b) Not accompanied by a central estimate or range of most plausible estimates, (b) Calculated on the premise that the organisation that cared enough about the impact that it ordered the assessment to be written, nevertheless choosing to do nothing within its power to reduce that impact.
If we end up in a No Deal situation in which the government really does voluntarily impose enormous tariffs to drive up prices of food, household essentials and industrial inputs, then they'll have managed to turn something economically risky and self-destructive into something even more risky and self-destructive...
I think MPs now have a duty to vote for May's deal to avoid No Deal.
It's as simple as that.
They can amend it to make it dependent on a referendum and/or change the political declaration.
How on earth can a referendum amendment be selected two days after being voted down? It couldn't possibly pass.
It could if the payroll was whipped to support it.
It wouldn't be an amendment then, if would be on the bill
Agree three potential amendments that Lab and Con could accept. Put them to the commons. And whichever (or none) are adopted, agree upfront to whip the resulting motion.
But haven't the indiicatives shown there ard no such amendments? Put it to a GE is the only option left I think
I think MPs now have a duty to vote for May's deal to avoid No Deal.
It's as simple as that.
They will never see it that way. They dont fear no deal as much as they hate Brexit, Tory Brexit or fake Brexit, take your pick. They will always believe other options will come.
If I was in the ERG I'd be minded to put forward the Common Market 2.0 / Confirmatory referendum with remain on the ballot to err "check" how much support it has in the Commons.
The mood in ERG has hardened as they can taste no deal.
We are in extreme peril of a no deal brexit and I have heard no other tangeable solution than to pass TM WDA
If it falls again the UK is out of time, as the legislation needed to stop no deal will not have time to do so
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
Twas always the case yet the proportions of votes for right-wing parties in that group have continued to grow.
It's easy to see why those who get wealthier as they age might become more attracted to the party of the property-owning classes.
It's less easy to see why those who get older would decide that an idea that they thought was batshit mental was in fact not batshit mental.
So your original point was mere speculation based upon your opinion of no deal Brexit. That's fine but not the slam dunk the comment implied. Surely in truth much will depend on how unpleasant no deal Brexit will be in practice. The more its ill effects are hyped up by 'remainiacs' - the more likely there will be anti-climax.
Erm your point is based on people changing their views. That's a lot more speculative than my reading, which is based on people not changing their views.
The Conservatives look to me to be impaled on a huge spike of their own choosing. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
What do you think the Conservatives' long term message would be to the public after a no-deal Brexit. "Yes, we risked the country's stability for something we passionately believed in, but trust us now"?
No doubt you find that a compelling message but the overwhelming majority who aren't in the death cult will not. Bear in mind also that the death cult is disproportionately comprised of pensioners, so it has a diminishing audience too.
Unless you plan mass euthanasia or worse the proportions of pensioners are continuing to grow.
Different pensioners. It's a conveyor belt, but without the cuddly toy.
Twas always the case yet the proportions of votes for right-wing parties in that group have continued to grow.
It's easy to see why those who get wealthier as they age might become more attracted to the party of the property-owning classes.
It's less easy to see why those who get older would decide that an idea that they thought was batshit mental was in fact not batshit mental.
Experience?
The last couple of years have shown that all the airy generalisations that Leavers went in for before the referendum result were complete horse feathers. All that's happened is that Leavers have got steadily more deranged and extreme.
Now it may be that Remainers are innately superior in intellect and stability to Leavers, but I wouldn't base my predictions on it. People bend the facts to their opinions, not vice versa.
Name one airy generalisation that has categorically been shown to be complete horse feathers.
"We hold all the cards" "They need us more than we need them" "If we vote Leave, we can dictate the terms"
"If we No Deal, it will force the EU to the negotiating table to give us what we want." appears to be coming up quickly on the rails to take over as the next batshit mad one.
Comments
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47786668
I would think a more likely result is a second leader in the wake of that crisis, able to unite the right and left of the party, like Miliband or Starmer.
https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1113000006330585088?s=21
Could you expand on that, and let us know who the members of the college will be?
The Louis Theroux on him is fascinating when you look back.
I don’t think in their bones they have any feeling or affection for liberal democracy. They are a mark of a political culture which is becoming fundamentally illiberal. See - http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/03/24/a-very-british-populism/.
http://britainelects.com/2019/04/01/by-election-previews-4th-april-2019/
Surely it is becoming inevitable that we will have to have a vote of some sort? That’s the only way the Tory Party might, just might, be held together in the medium to long term. Possibly a CU vs Deal referendum? That might just scrape through the House....
I think he'd let Milne and McDonnell run the show.
That might not be stable if there are any sensible MPs left in the Labour party.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/02/brexit-vote-latest-news-philip-hammond-propose-putting-theresa/
That's what we saw with Iraq: It took 5 or 10 years for most of the people who backed it to start saying it was a mistake, but for a long time nearly all the people who'd supported it would have told you how disastrous the implementation was.
Unfairly but inevitably, the people who wanted No Deal will desert the Tories and support Farage or similar.
https://ig.ft.com/brexit-second-round-indicative-votes/#votes-table
If there's a third Indicative Vote I'd expect Moran, at least, to vote for the rumoured composite option.
GE and to hell with them all
If it's mainly screwing untelegenic people then it may be survivable though.
I think MPs now have a duty to vote for May's deal to avoid No Deal.
It's as simple as that.
They are gonna need plenty of broken from Bradford horror stories and not so many well spoken teen can't study Art History in Hamburg chucklethons
He is consulting with Yvette Cooper to put a bill forward on Thursday to stop no deal but seems not for anything that is feasible to replace it with
Verified account
@bbclaurak
Follow Follow @bbclaurak
More
Whispers this morning that clerks in Commons have made it clear to govt that Bercow would not allow them to bring back the deal for another vote - one source says this is a 'BIG PROBLEM' - with capital letters - BUT Speaker's office says not decided yet - let's see
The way it has been hyped up, a bit like the overdone cuts narrative, I think a lot of people are expecting hyperinflation and bread shortages.
But why would it be backed now?
At grass roots both parties are already gone.
It's less easy to see why those who get older would decide that an idea that they thought was batshit mental was in fact not batshit mental.
The Conservatives thus face the terrible double prospect of voters shifting away from supporting their central policy, while those who do support it become enraged by the failure to deliver it. That’s why there is nothing guaranteed about having 316 seats in the Commons, nothing at all certain about having a Conservative government, and every possibility of leadership candidates finding they are leading not very much at all.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/01/took-conservatives-ruins-next-leader-could-find-worse-situation/
It is why IMO the government narrative about the economic dangers of Brexit didn't cut through there, say compared to the South East.
Now it may be that Remainers are innately superior in intellect and stability to Leavers, but I wouldn't base my predictions on it. People bend the facts to their opinions, not vice versa.
I do fear that some people would actively create or allow chaos because they want to be proved right. It is human nature.
No deal is thus not a solution for a stable government, which is why it seems Labour seem to be doing everything they can to encourage it.
Personally I don't think it would be a disaster in the long term but in the world of politics it is how it looks in the short term that counts.
May needs to get her deal through. Maybe a unicorn will appear at the last minute and remove the backstop.
What has been shown to be complete horse feathers was the Remainers projections for what happens if we vote to leave with the airy generalisation that we'd have an immediate recession and spiking unemployment when in fact the polar opposite happened.
The problems of Stoke man, and similar declining small cities/towns, never were about the EU.
SNP (35 MPs) abstained; TIG (11) voted against; 5 Lib Dems voted against, 5 abstained, and 1 voted for.
In addition, Labour Remainer Owen Smith and Green MP Caroline Lucas also voted against it.
"They need us more than we need them"
"If we vote Leave, we can dictate the terms"
But I think the reality is worse - it's checkmate for the whole UK.
It is dawning on me now that we're the proverbial boiling frog. We've just realised we need to leap out of the pan. But we don't now have the means to do so.
It's No Deal, and we're all fucked. There really is no "panic button" option to get us out of it, is there?
Unless the EU panics first and dives in to rescue us.
(a) Quoted as "up to",
(b) Not accompanied by a central estimate or range of most plausible estimates,
(b) Calculated on the premise that the organisation that cared enough about the impact that it ordered the assessment to be written, nevertheless choosing to do nothing within its power to reduce that impact.
If we end up in a No Deal situation in which the government really does voluntarily impose enormous tariffs to drive up prices of food, household essentials and industrial inputs, then they'll have managed to turn something economically risky and self-destructive into something even more risky and self-destructive...
TM says no to further negotiations
We are in extreme peril of a no deal brexit and I have heard no other tangeable solution than to pass TM WDA
If it falls again the UK is out of time, as the legislation needed to stop no deal will not have time to do so
The Conservatives look to me to be impaled on a huge spike of their own choosing. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.