Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
Surely the label "Conservative and Unionist Party" means the opposite? You can be a Conservative who's not a Unionist or a Unionist who's not a Conservative, but the Party is for those who are both.
Although correct me if I'm wrong but the Tories haven't actually gone by the moniker "Conservative and Unionist Party" for many years.
I don't think I've ever had a ballot paper with the description 'Conservative and Unionist Party' on it.
Nor, for example, did the voters of Maidenhead in 2017:
And the Unionist bit refers to the union of Britain and Ireland and the Liberal Unionists of the 19th century so somewhat defunct now in any case.
I thought the Unionist bit referred to the Unionist Party that used to stand candidates as a separate party in Scotland, but were hurriedly merged with the English Conservative Party after the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland went rogue and became the Ulster Unionists, independent of their English Conservative Bretwalda.
' In 1886, the party formed an alliance with Spencer Compton Cavendish, Lord Hartington (later the 8th Duke of Devonshire) and Joseph Chamberlain's new Liberal Unionist Party and, under the statesmen Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Lord Salisbury and Arthur Balfour, held power for all but three of the following twenty years before suffering a heavy defeat in 1906 when it split over the issue of free trade. In 1912, the Liberal Unionists merged with the Conservative Party. In Ireland, the Irish Unionist Alliance had been formed in 1891 which merged Unionists who were opposed to Irish Home Rule into one political movement. Its MPs took the Conservative whip at Westminster, and in essence, formed the Irish wing of the party until 1922. In Britain, the Conservative party was known as the Unionist Party because of its opposition to home rule in Ireland. '
The Scottish Unionists were merely the Scottish branch of the party:
' Following the merger of the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists to create the modern Conservative and Unionist Party in England and Wales, a committee was formed of the National Union of Conservative Associations for Scotland and regional Liberal Unionist associations which recommended a merger in Scotland. This was agreed in December 1912, creating the Scottish Unionist Association and the Unionist Party. '
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
They expect MPs to dump this crap PM.
Yes, but that doesn't get them no deal, or any other deal they might want, not with the parliamentary numbers as they are. One won't magically appear because May is gone, so it is just laziness to pretend otherwise.
I'm trying to decide how many deposits the returning officer will have to repay. On the one hand a low turnout moves the 5% bar lower, but with so many minor parties standing you could see quite a large percentage of the vote split between lots of candidates with none of them saving their deposit.
I'm tempted to suggest the saved deposits will be Lab, Con and the disgraced former MP in third.
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
They expect MPs to dump this crap PM.
To be replaced by whom in order to achieve what ?
To be better. Don’t be so binary. A sandwich with one turd in it is better than one with two.
The UK would have a veto on an EU army if it was still in , the same veto it would also have on Turkey joining .
The same veto we had on a Single Currency forming?
We did have a veto. We just chose not to use it.
I don't think that's true. John Major went down the opt-out route (which was also a right to opt-in) because his legal advice was that it could be done without us in any case.
The UK would have a veto on an EU army if it was still in , the same veto it would also have on Turkey joining .
The same veto we had on a Single Currency forming?
We did have a veto. We just chose not to use it.
I don't think that's true. John Major went down the opt-out route (which was also a right to opt-in) because his legal advice was that it could be done without us in any case.
You can't stop a bunch of other sovereign states from sharing a currency, so they could certainly have created a single currency outside the EU. Letting them do it inside the EU gives you a little bit of influence over what they're going to do anyway and no obvious downside.
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
They expect MPs to dump this crap PM.
To be replaced by whom in order to achieve what ?
To be better. Don’t be so binary. A sandwich with one turd in it is better than one with two.
That's still not telling us how it would be better and how that would be achieved.
The UK would have a veto on an EU army if it was still in , the same veto it would also have on Turkey joining .
The same veto we had on a Single Currency forming?
We did have a veto. We just chose not to use it.
Has the UK ever vetoed anything ?
For example an unfavourable trade treaty ?
Yes, Cameron did once.
Didn't the EU just ignore his veto ?
Ooh, now this is where it gets complicated. He did veto the watchamacallit as a EU thing, and - as was only right and proper - the EU abandoned it. But a little-known provision of the Treaty of Nice introduced "enhanced cooperation": a system whereby a subset of the EU could introduce a treaty of their own and use EU facilities. So the Euro-nations used that clause to do their own treaty, which they did. The Eurosceptics (a now rather nostalgic phrase) went ballistic, claiming that it was illegal. But "enhanced cooperation" had been discussed as a possible way forward when it looked as if Lisbon might fall, so it was neither illegal nor a surprise. Although given UK's later secession, it was a Pyrrhic victory...
The UK would have a veto on an EU army if it was still in , the same veto it would also have on Turkey joining .
The same veto we had on a Single Currency forming?
We did have a veto. We just chose not to use it.
I don't think that's true. John Major went down the opt-out route (which was also a right to opt-in) because his legal advice was that it could be done without us in any case.
It required a treaty so it required unanimity.
Of course, EMU could have been achieved entirely outside the existing EU framework, with the countries doing their own treaty (which is, of course, how Schengen started).
But the UK government decided it was better to be half in, than for the EU to be left behind by a new supranational entity in charge of the Single European Currency.
The UK would have a veto on an EU army if it was still in , the same veto it would also have on Turkey joining .
The same veto we had on a Single Currency forming?
We did have a veto. We just chose not to use it.
Has the UK ever vetoed anything ?
For example an unfavourable trade treaty ?
Yes, Cameron did once.
Didn't the EU just ignore his veto ?
Yes. Just as they built Schengen without us too.
Schengen was initially created in 1985 as a treaty between five countries (and building on the historic Benelux free travel area). It only became an EU thing much later.
A couple of sources here tell me it’s looking very close between Labour and Conservative. So close, in fact, that they were predicting a recount! (Far too early to be making such predictions, if you ask me!) #NewportWest 0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
The UK would have a veto on an EU army if it was still in , the same veto it would also have on Turkey joining .
The same veto we had on a Single Currency forming?
We did have a veto. We just chose not to use it.
Has the UK ever vetoed anything ?
For example an unfavourable trade treaty ?
Yes, Cameron did once.
Didn't the EU just ignore his veto ?
Yes. Just as they built Schengen without us too.
Schengen was initially created in 1985 as a treaty between five countries (and building on the historic Benelux free travel area). It only became an EU thing much later.
Yes indeed it was half of the European Communities at the time, all the original members except Italy.
The Fiscal Compact followed the same precedence but including a much higher proportion of nations.
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
They expect MPs to dump this crap PM.
To be replaced by whom in order to achieve what ?
To be better. Don’t be so binary. A sandwich with one turd in it is better than one with two.
That's still not telling us how it would be better and how that would be achieved.
Are you seriously telling me that a new leader couldn’t raise morale and enchance party unity ?
There are lots of ways forward better than Mays. Virtually any approach is.
The UK would have a veto on an EU army if it was still in , the same veto it would also have on Turkey joining .
The same veto we had on a Single Currency forming?
We did have a veto. We just chose not to use it.
Has the UK ever vetoed anything ?
For example an unfavourable trade treaty ?
Yes, Cameron did once.
Didn't the EU just ignore his veto ?
Yes. Just as they built Schengen without us too.
Schengen was initially created in 1985 as a treaty between five countries (and building on the historic Benelux free travel area). It only became an EU thing much later.
Yes indeed it was half of the European Communities at the time, all the original members except Italy.
The Fiscal Compact followed the same precedence but including a much higher proportion of nations.
Fun fact of the day, the treaty used for Schengen was pretty much identical to the old one between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxuembourg, just with a couple of extra countries inserted in.
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
They expect MPs to dump this crap PM.
To be replaced by whom in order to achieve what ?
To be better. Don’t be so binary. A sandwich with one turd in it is better than one with two.
That's still not telling us how it would be better and how that would be achieved.
Are you seriously telling me that a new leader couldn’t raise morale and enchance party unity ?
There are lots of ways forward better than Mays. Virtually any approach is.
As there are 'lots of ways forward better than Mays' perhaps you could list a few.
Telegraph: "Grassroots Conservative activists are "quitting in their droves", it has been claimed, as new polling shows that more than 90 per cent disagree with Theresa May's decision to open talks with Jeremy Corbyn."
I'm lost now.
I thought Blue Momentum was trying to get extra people to join to vote for Boris?
I'm lost because I don't know what these activists expected given they can presumably count and can see that the PM doesn't have the numbers to even no deal, given workarounds are being made there. Do they think she opened talks with Corbyn lightly?
At least see if it goes anywhere first, see what the cost is. Because simply being open to working with others, even opponents, is not wrong. Particularly when you lack a majority.
They expect MPs to dump this crap PM.
To be replaced by whom in order to achieve what ?
To be better. Don’t be so binary. A sandwich with one turd in it is better than one with two.
That's still not telling us how it would be better and how that would be achieved.
Are you seriously telling me that a new leader couldn’t raise morale and enchance party unity ?
There are lots of ways forward better than Mays. Virtually any approach is.
As there are 'lots of ways forward better than Mays' perhaps you could list a few.
A few off the top of my head, could be done individually or in combination, coming from all sort of backs - though some are contradictory with others. 1: Take actions necessary to prepare for and enact No Deal if necessary [should have been done from start] 2: Have a General Election led by someone with more charisma than a zombie. 3: Have a PM with more charisma than a zombie. 4: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a referendum. 5: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a General Election to break the deadlock. 6: Be prepared to sack Chris Grayling*
The first prediction, about a low turnout, turns out to be nonsense. 37% is pretty respectable for a by-election these days. Leeds Central in 1999 was only 19% IIRC. Maybe some more predictions about the result will also be wrong...
Newport West: Turnout confirmed at 37.1% (-30.4 vs 2017)
So it seems like the verdict is they're neither angry nor disillusioned, they're just kind of leaving the politicians to do politician things while they get on with their lives???
A few off the top of my head, could be done individually or in combination, coming from all sort of backs - though some are contradictory with others. 1: Take actions necessary to prepare for and enact No Deal if necessary [should have been done from start] 2: Have a General Election led by someone with more charisma than a zombie. 3: Have a PM with more charisma than a zombie. 4: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a referendum. 5: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a General Election to break the deadlock. 6: Be prepared to sack Chris Grayling*
* Doesn't solve Brexit but still worth doing.
I was banging on about (1) from the start. Even before we triggered Article 50, we should have been hiring additional staff for checking passports, building customs infrastructure at Dover, putting in place the right IT systems, etc.
The more prepared you are, the more credible the threat to walk away without a deal.
The other half to (1), of course, is that the government needed to have (initially at least) focused all their trade energies on rolling over existing deals. Instead, Dr Fox swanned around Washington, building up a team of trade negotiators for a deal that simply was never going to be plausible on a two year time horizon.
The more preparation you do for No Deal, the less likely you are to exit on No Deal terms.
There would always be dislocations from leaving without a Deal. But with proper planning they would have been manageable. Instead there has been negligible preparation, and we still haven't rolled over many of the most important trade agreements.
Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance, I believe is the phrase...
A few off the top of my head, could be done individually or in combination, coming from all sort of backs - though some are contradictory with others. 1: Take actions necessary to prepare for and enact No Deal if necessary [should have been done from start] 2: Have a General Election led by someone with more charisma than a zombie. 3: Have a PM with more charisma than a zombie. 4: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a referendum. 5: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a General Election to break the deadlock. 6: Be prepared to sack Chris Grayling*
* Doesn't solve Brexit but still worth doing.
I was banging on about (1) from the start. Even before we triggered Article 50, we should have been hiring additional staff for checking passports, building customs infrastructure at Dover, putting in place the right IT systems, etc.
The more prepared you are, the more credible the threat to walk away without a deal.
The other half to (1), of course, is that the government needed to have (initially at least) focused all their trade energies on rolling over existing deals. Instead, Dr Fox swanned around Washington, building up a team of trade negotiators for a deal that simply was never going to be plausible on a two year time horizon.
The more preparation you do for No Deal, the less likely you are to exit on No Deal terms.
There would always be dislocations from leaving without a Deal. But with proper planning they would have been manageable. Instead there has been negligible preparation, and we still haven't rolled over many of the most important trade agreements.
Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance, I believe is the phrase...
Do you stand by your previous comments that no deal preparation should have included building customs infrastructure on the Irish border?
UKIP tell me they’re happy with a low turnout (officially of 37.1%) and that it bodes well for them. They’re setting their sights on pipping the Tories to second place. #NewportWest
I don't really get the Buttigieg thing - he's pleasant enough, but basically a harmless centrist who does least well against Trump of all the candidates:
A few off the top of my head, could be done individually or in combination, coming from all sort of backs - though some are contradictory with others. 1: Take actions necessary to prepare for and enact No Deal if necessary [should have been done from start] 2: Have a General Election led by someone with more charisma than a zombie. 3: Have a PM with more charisma than a zombie. 4: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a referendum. 5: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a General Election to break the deadlock. 6: Be prepared to sack Chris Grayling*
* Doesn't solve Brexit but still worth doing.
I was banging on about (1) from the start. Even before we triggered Article 50, we should have been hiring additional staff for checking passports, building customs infrastructure at Dover, putting in place the right IT systems, etc.
The more prepared you are, the more credible the threat to walk away without a deal.
The other half to (1), of course, is that the government needed to have (initially at least) focused all their trade energies on rolling over existing deals. Instead, Dr Fox swanned around Washington, building up a team of trade negotiators for a deal that simply was never going to be plausible on a two year time horizon.
The more preparation you do for No Deal, the less likely you are to exit on No Deal terms.
There would always be dislocations from leaving without a Deal. But with proper planning they would have been manageable. Instead there has been negligible preparation, and we still haven't rolled over many of the most important trade agreements.
Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance, I believe is the phrase...
UKIP tell me they’re happy with a low turnout (officially of 37.1%) and that it bodes well for them. They’re setting their sights on pipping the Tories to second place. #NewportWest
I don't really get the Buttigieg thing - he's pleasant enough, but basically a harmless centrist who does least well against Trump of all the candidates:
Comments
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/could-pete-buttigieg-could-be-new-joe-biden-bipartisan-voters-ncna991001
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Party_(UK)#Conservatives_and_Unionists_(1867–1914)
The Scottish Unionists were merely the Scottish branch of the party:
' Following the merger of the Conservatives and Liberal Unionists to create the modern Conservative and Unionist Party in England and Wales, a committee was formed of the National Union of Conservative Associations for Scotland and regional Liberal Unionist associations which recommended a merger in Scotland. This was agreed in December 1912, creating the Scottish Unionist Association and the Unionist Party. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Conservatives#The_Unionist_Party_(1912-1965)
https://www.southbendtribune.com/.../local/pete-buttigieg-to-make-special-announceme...
Unavailable for legal reasons, at least in EU...
What is this?
Not sure, as a heavy bettor on Pete, this sounds good.
I'm trying to decide how many deposits the returning officer will have to repay. On the one hand a low turnout moves the 5% bar lower, but with so many minor parties standing you could see quite a large percentage of the vote split between lots of candidates with none of them saving their deposit.
I'm tempted to suggest the saved deposits will be Lab, Con and the disgraced former MP in third.
Any other ideas?
I am getting excited.
This has a feel of a massive, massive political upset. Maybe I am totally wrong, but still 9 on BF for nominee.
DYOR
BBC
Of course, EMU could have been achieved entirely outside the existing EU framework, with the countries doing their own treaty (which is, of course, how Schengen started).
But the UK government decided it was better to be half in, than for the EU to be left behind by a new supranational entity in charge of the Single European Currency.
Greens push labour into 4th
Siôn Jenkins
@Sion_J
3m3 minutes ago
A couple of sources here tell me it’s looking very close between Labour and Conservative. So close, in fact, that they were predicting a recount! (Far too early to be making such predictions, if you ask me!) #NewportWest
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likes
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1113912488641351688?s=20
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1113912489970946060?s=20
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1113912491208265728?s=20
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1113912492428877829?s=20
https://www.twitter.com/Sion_J/status/1113936318868987905
The Fiscal Compact followed the same precedence but including a much higher proportion of nations.
There are lots of ways forward better than Mays. Virtually any approach is.
Roger Awan-Scully
Verified account @roger_scully
14s14 seconds ago
One question about Newport West was whether all the argumets about Brexit might mobilise angry voters, or if it would turn them off taking part.
From what we are hearing, it seems more likely that the latter has been the case.
The likely outcome is a customs partnership , on certain sectors . May gives the rest of what Labour wants which isn’t that controversial .
No way she’ll go for a full CU .
Could make it interesting
https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/conference/2007/09/labour-majority-increase
[if that does happen, it was a joke, not prescience!]
1: Take actions necessary to prepare for and enact No Deal if necessary [should have been done from start]
2: Have a General Election led by someone with more charisma than a zombie.
3: Have a PM with more charisma than a zombie.
4: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a referendum.
5: Be prepared to propose and back an extension and a General Election to break the deadlock.
6: Be prepared to sack Chris Grayling*
* Doesn't solve Brexit but still worth doing.
Lab 1.01, so seems not.
Edit- not as bad as I thought, ignore
The more prepared you are, the more credible the threat to walk away without a deal.
The other half to (1), of course, is that the government needed to have (initially at least) focused all their trade energies on rolling over existing deals. Instead, Dr Fox swanned around Washington, building up a team of trade negotiators for a deal that simply was never going to be plausible on a two year time horizon.
The more preparation you do for No Deal, the less likely you are to exit on No Deal terms.
There would always be dislocations from leaving without a Deal. But with proper planning they would have been manageable. Instead there has been negligible preparation, and we still haven't rolled over many of the most important trade agreements.
Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance, I believe is the phrase...
Labour 44%
Conservatives 40%
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/04/politics/bernie-sanders-tax-returns/index.html?utm_source=twCNNp&utm_term=image&utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-04-04T20:59:08
The fact that he got away with this last time without it being a big deal is a sign of what an easy ride he got.
CON 32%
UKIP 22%
If UKIP get double-digits they'll have done well.
UKIP who knows? Who cares?
Siôn Jenkins
@Sion_J
5m5 minutes ago
UKIP tell me they’re happy with a low turnout (officially of 37.1%) and that it bodes well for them. They’re setting their sights on pipping the Tories to second place. #NewportWest
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Biden still doing much the best, though I'd prefer Sanders myself.
Public Posturing Produces Piss Poor Performance.
17s
18 seconds ago
More
Candidate agents being summoned to discuss spoiled ballots #NewportWest
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/04/pete-buttigieg-president-democratic-primary