"How is having a General Election a policy? Don’t you need a policy in order to have a General Election?"
There's a lot of that nonsense about. It's because it's a free hit for the people saying it. For Labour, it's an extra chance to win a majority, poor though that is.
In the same way, another referendum is an extra chance for the Remainers, no matter that it would solve nothing. If Leave wins … many will still not accept it. If Remain wins, why not another referendum next week? It's what the LDs wanted in 2016.
It's the same with the extension? What was it for? breathing space for Mrs May. And what has it achieved?
It's an adult version of a child's tantrum. "I want my own way."
> @DavidL said: > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The only way to get a deal through or any other definitive* Brexit outcome is where a crisis makes the alternative look worse. Voters and politicians only accept damage limitation if they first accept the situation is damaging enough to require limitation.
* No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
Oh and No Deal being an essential element of negotiation is like saying no food is an essential element of living. That's one of the delusions that needs to go if we are to get anywhere.
> In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time.
>
> S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt has been rigged for silent running for some time now. I wonder when she'll surface and hoist colours.
>
> Out of curiosity, why do you mock Mordaunt for claiming she was in the Navy Reserve, when she was, and never seem to criticise Thornberry for having claimed to be an army colonel when she wasn't?
or Francois for claiming to be a "veteran" when he was briefly in the TA?
How on earth was somebody as fat as Francois in the TA? I thought they had minimum fitness standards?
> @IanB2 said: > > @Jonathan said: > > If you go to the country immediately you force MPs to quit or stand on your manifesto. Most MPs will cling to nanny. > > There is no way the Tories can make a unified choice between a deal or no deal. And no way they can contemplate an election when huge chunks of their former supporters are saying they will stick with the BXP and the LibDems.
The Tories can unify around trying again for a Deal before October, including trying to amend the backstop with the EU and if that fails refusing to extend beyond October and then preparing for No Deal
> @FrankBooth said: > Boris is very quiet at the moment. Is he hoping for a coronation? > > Perhaps there's a reason why the favourite never gets the crown.
Johnson's chief appeal is his electability. Every time he speaks is a reminder of his weaknesses. He's no longer popular enough to demonstrate his popularity by meeting members of the public. Rory Stewart can do that because no-one knows who he is.
> @DavidL said: > > @eek said: > > > @Nigelb said: > > > > > > Do you really imagine that any administration pushing through no deal would be so pragmatic ? Even if it were to command a parliamentary majority... > > > > > > Such an approach would be labelled betrayal by most proponents of no deal. > > > > > > > > > > While we in desperation might have some urgency in getting a trade deal with the EU why / how would the EU have the same urgency... > > > > One of the biggest screw ups we have done with Brexit is not thinking about how the other half will think... > > Their attitude will be influenced by our attitude. That is why looking after their citizens, paying our debts, generally being cooperative in NI etc, are so important. If we act in a grown up manner then I think we can assume that they will respond in kind. Of course the reverse is also true: if we act like arseholes they will retaliate. I think we can say that that is the pattern of the negotiations to date. Given May's ineptitude the deal she was offered was far more balanced than it might have been.
In a No Deal world - attitude doesn't equal priority. You really are clutching at straws here. There is no reason to think that things that are a priority for us on November 1st will be a priority for the EU....
Mind you, your argument is better than the one I heard yesterday where Brexit would result in the reopening of shipyards on the Tyne. Which would require both miraclous improvements in UK productivity or very low wages.
> @WhisperingOracle said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @WhisperingOracle said: > > > Mordaunt is the mysterious figure in this race. > > > > "THE" mysterious figure? I think not. > > Well, haven't all the others expected thrown their hat in the ring so far, or strongly tipped to.
Oh, you think its mysterious that she hasn't actually declared yet? I thought the mystery was how she could be so deluded as to believe that she was up to it. A delusion that is very widely shared.
Mr. L, there's something in that, though I fear you overestimate the reasonableness of the EU.
May did offer to remove citizens' rights as an issue for everyone by agreeing to grandfather in residency rights and so forth ahead of any negotiations, and the EU declined. Nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.
Now there's no agreement, but the EU won't negotiate on anything. The 'deal' was done. Except if we wanted to subject ourselves to a customs union. But, apart from that, negotiations were impossible because we'd (ahem) 'agreed' a deal. It was a point of principle...
> @Roger said: > I wonder why Labour use so many spokespeople-nearly always female-who sound completely stupid? They have plenty of articulate MPs so it's clearly a choice someone is making. Anyone who uses the word 'PARTY' where the 'r' and 't' is silent is going to sound stupid. > > The one I'm listening at the moment thinks Labour did well in the Euros!
Their assessment of how the election went aside, that's how people talk. I think it's a credit to the Labour Party that that they have people who don't sound like identikit BBC home counties lawyers. If you're from a posh bit of Surrey or Hampshire, you still have an accent. And no accent is correct.
> @FF43 said: > > @DavidL said: > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > The only way to get a deal through or any other definitive* Brexit outcome is where a crisis makes the alternative look worse. Voters and politicians only accept damage limitation if they first accept the situation is damaging enough to require limitation. > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
.
It's why they are in a worse position than labour- they are boxed in with no path out.
I fear you're being optimistic about the EU's attitude. I have never believed negotiations would be straightforward. The EU negotiators were employed to get the best deal for the remaining twenty seven, not to be Mr Nice Guy. If we concede something, they will take it happily. It will be a sign of weakness.
At the end of the negotiations, they will be judged on what they have achieved, not how nice they've been.
> @eek said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @Foxy said: > > > > > > > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through. > > > > > > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA. > > > > > > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards. > > > > Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end. > > And how does that work under WTO rules - whatever we unilaterally charge in tariffs to the EU (none) is then the maximum we can charge other countries. > > One reason why South Korea has agreements with most countries is because their tariffs are the maximum allowed unless you have a trade agreement - to get to that position we need a signed deal with the EU before we start elsewhere otherwise the maximum we can charge is the 0% we are charging the EU.
We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes.
Don't get me wrong. May's deal is a much better way forward and reduces uncertainty considerably by being comprehensive. But the perils of no deal are being vastly overstated, not least by Hunt.
> > > Claiming that the messiest and most chaotic of all possible Brexits is a 'clean' Brexit is wondrously 1984ish.
> >
> > A clean break is a long established term not Newspeak.
>
> If people are going to criticise people's vote as a term, which is reasonable, using clean break can also be criticised for the same reasoning. Defending one and not the other, when bother are trying to present a partisan friendly approach, is a sure sign of the attacks on the other being nothing but political. It certainly has not been the most commonly used term for no deal until recently, which indicates an attempt to change the messaging.
The criticism of people's vote normally is that we already have had one. That doesn't apply to a clean break.
The criticism of peoples vote is it's a blatant marketing choice to avoid negative connotations . That absolutely applies to clean break as well, and you are not fooling anyone by noting the reason the connotations being avoided are negative is different.
Thatd be like saying criticising labour and the Tories for being crap is untrue because the reason one is crap may be different to the other.
This twisting on a dime to criticise the spinning of one side but not the spinning of the other is hilarious and unconvincing. Spin is spin.
Miss Rose, must admit I was surprised, when quickly checking Ladbrokes this morning, that Hunt was 13 but Gove was 5. Would've guessed the other way around.
> @Mysticrose said: > > @NickPalmer said: > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...? > > Brexit Party presumably are going to storm it?
The smart money should now go on LibDems coming second.
Suzanne Evans slapped down Emily Thornberry on Sunday night for proposing a referendum as, she said, it would split the Leave vote.
It's surely worth countering this. Either Suzanne Evans is being a typical politician i.e. a downright liar. Or she is incredibly stupid.
The fairest way to have a referendum must surely be to have an opening question, or round, with the straight Remain vs Leave question.
Only then, if Leave wins that, would it go to the options as the 2nd question: No Deal, the Current WA (which is the EU deal) or a Customs Union alternative.
If every citizen is capable of filling in a passport application, which includes multiple pathways and complicated options, then a simply 2 Stage vote really shouldn't be beyond us.
> > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
>
> Brexit Party presumably are going to storm it?
The smart money should now go on LibDems coming second.
Certainly the publicity around the EU elections isn't exactly going to help the two main parties.
Ordinarily I would still expect Labour to win with the Faragistas splitting the votes of their rivals, but they are in a huge mess and the circumstances of the by-election are less than encouraging for them.
Mr. Eagles, didn't get on at 1001 (or is that 101, which sounds likelier) but did put a few pounds on at 51, so if Hunt's the next chap that'd be nice.
Edited extra bit: and cheers for that tip, incidentally, likewise Mr. Meeks for the Gove tip (think I backed him at about 26).
> @DavidL said: > > @WhisperingOracle said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > > @WhisperingOracle said: > > > > Mordaunt is the mysterious figure in this race. > > > > > > "THE" mysterious figure? I think not. > > > > Well, haven't all the others expected thrown their hat in the ring so far, or strongly tipped to. > > Oh, you think its mysterious that she hasn't actually declared yet? I thought the mystery was how she could be so deluded as to believe that she was up to it. A delusion that is very widely shared.
Esther McVey has shown that absolutely no one should think the office of PM exceeds their ability.
> @Mysticrose said: > Suzanne Evans slapped down Emily Thornberry on Sunday night for proposing a referendum as, she said, it would split the Leave vote. > > It's surely worth countering this. Either Suzanne Evans is being a typical politician i.e. a downright liar. Or she is incredibly stupid. > > The fairest way to have a referendum must surely be to have an opening question, or round, with the straight Remain vs Leave question. > > Only then, if Leave wins that, would it go to the options as the 2nd question: No Deal, the Current WA (which is the EU deal) or a Customs Union alternative. > > If every citizen is capable of filling in a passport application, which includes multiple pathways and complicated options, then a simply 2 Stage vote really shouldn't be beyond us.
The order of the questions affects the results. Fairer to have an instant runoff. If you have multiple outcomes, put them all at the same time.
To negotiate with the EU, we should have appointed a group from the CS with experience and told them to get the best deal available. In fact, we should have begun it before the referendum.
Cameron's crime was to stop the CS doing its job, and why he should be languishing in the Tower, not writing his autobiography.
> @CD13 said: > Mr L, > > I fear you're being optimistic about the EU's attitude. I have never believed negotiations would be straightforward. The EU negotiators were employed to get the best deal for the remaining twenty seven, not to be Mr Nice Guy. If we concede something, they will take it happily. It will be a sign of weakness. > > At the end of the negotiations, they will be judged on what they have achieved, not how nice they've been. > > The niceness is side dish not the main meal.
Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness".
Mr. Eagles, didn't get on at 1001 (or is that 101, which sounds likelier) but did put a few pounds on at 51, so if Hunt's the next chap that'd be nice.
Edited extra bit: and cheers for that tip, incidentally, likewise Mr. Meeks for the Gove tip (think I backed him at about 26).
100/1.
It is the Wordpress URL creator, it removes symbols from the headline into the URL so it only displays only numbers and characters.
> > > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through.
> > >
> > > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA.
> > >
> > > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
> >
> > Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
>
> And how does that work under WTO rules - whatever we unilaterally charge in tariffs to the EU (none) is then the maximum we can charge other countries.
>
> One reason why South Korea has agreements with most countries is because their tariffs are the maximum allowed unless you have a trade agreement - to get to that position we need a signed deal with the EU before we start elsewhere otherwise the maximum we can charge is the 0% we are charging the EU.
We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes.
Don't get me wrong. May's deal is a much better way forward and reduces uncertainty considerably by being comprehensive. But the perils of no deal are being vastly overstated, not least by Hunt.
Suzanne Evans slapped down Emily Thornberry on Sunday night for proposing a referendum as, she said, it would split the Leave vote.
It's surely worth countering this. Either Suzanne Evans is being a typical politician i.e. a downright liar. Or she is incredibly stupid.
The fairest way to have a referendum must surely be to have an opening question, or round, with the straight Remain vs Leave question.
Only then, if Leave wins that, would it go to the options as the 2nd question: No Deal, the Current WA (which is the EU deal) or a Customs Union alternative.
If every citizen is capable of filling in a passport application, which includes multiple pathways and complicated options, then a simply 2 Stage vote really shouldn't be beyond us.
I agree with you, but where we probably disagree is I would say we’ve already had stage one
> @IanB2 said: > For a Tory a very intelligent interview with Hunt on R4
I'm sure I've seen some people on here describe Hunt as dim, but he got a First at Oxford and speaks several languages. You could have called him many things, and some infamously did, but I wouldn't say that 'stupid' is one of them.
> I fear you're being optimistic about the EU's attitude. I have never believed negotiations would be straightforward. The EU negotiators were employed to get the best deal for the remaining twenty seven, not to be Mr Nice Guy. If we concede something, they will take it happily. It will be a sign of weakness.
>
> At the end of the negotiations, they will be judged on what they have achieved, not how nice they've been.
>
> The niceness is side dish not the main meal.
Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness".
If it would be a simple matter to rejoin people would not fight so hard to avoid even a BINO. They know instead that it might prove very hard indeed, regardless of how closely aligned we are.
> @ah009 said: > > @Mysticrose said: > > Suzanne Evans slapped down Emily Thornberry on Sunday night for proposing a referendum as, she said, it would split the Leave vote. > > > > It's surely worth countering this. Either Suzanne Evans is being a typical politician i.e. a downright liar. Or she is incredibly stupid. > > > > The fairest way to have a referendum must surely be to have an opening question, or round, with the straight Remain vs Leave question. > > > > Only then, if Leave wins that, would it go to the options as the 2nd question: No Deal, the Current WA (which is the EU deal) or a Customs Union alternative. > > > > If every citizen is capable of filling in a passport application, which includes multiple pathways and complicated options, then a simply 2 Stage vote really shouldn't be beyond us. > > The order of the questions affects the results. Fairer to have an instant runoff. If you have multiple outcomes, put them all at the same time.
Equally not all citizens can fill in a passport application correctly - the post office and other companies offer a checking service for money and people use it, equally others may help people fill in passport applications.
And you only have to look at any none single cross ballot count to see how many people don't follow the instructions correctly...
> For a Tory a very intelligent interview with Hunt on R4
I'm sure I've seen some people on here describe Hunt as dim, but he got a First at Oxford and speaks several languages. You could have called him many things, and some infamously did, but I wouldn't say that 'stupid' is one of them.
People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we.
By the way, to re-state the blindingly obvious, part of the problem with betting on this leadership race is that we're not dealing with normal people. I don't mean that rudely, but we're dealing with:
1. Conservative MPs 2. Conservative members
So we have to try and work out what they're likely to do, not what we would, nor what the rest of the country would.
> In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time.
>
> S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt has been rigged for silent running for some time now. I wonder when she'll surface and hoist colours.
>
> Out of curiosity, why do you mock Mordaunt for claiming she was in the Navy Reserve, when she was, and never seem to criticise Thornberry for having claimed to be an army colonel when she wasn't?
or Francois for claiming to be a "veteran" when he was briefly in the TA?
How on earth was somebody as fat as Francois in the TA? I thought they had minimum fitness standards?
Enforcement of the fitness standards went out of the window some time ago when the 2010 SDSR caused crippling people shortages in just about every function.
> @Morris_Dancer said: > Mr. B2, could the yellows win it?
In by-election winning days of old, for sure. There's always been LibDem activity there and they still have a small group of councillors. But they never got beyond 20% in a GE.
And there is a significant ethnic mix in P'Boro that wont play to BXP's advantage. But with the LibDems now a proxy for a strong remain vote, it doesn't now feel like a constituency that is ripe for a LibDem win, especially with the Tories now down and out and Labour likely to throw everything at it (the circumstances for a LibDem win are the opposite - Labour down and out with the Tories able to split the right wing vote with BXP).
> @Dura_Ace said: > > @ydoethur said: > > > In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time. > > > > > > S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt has been rigged for silent running for some time now. I wonder when she'll surface and hoist colours. > > > > > > Out of curiosity, why do you mock Mordaunt for claiming she was in the Navy Reserve, when she was, and never seem to criticise Thornberry for having claimed to be an army colonel when she wasn't? > > > > or Francois for claiming to be a "veteran" when he was briefly in the TA? > > How on earth was somebody as fat as Francois in the TA? I thought they had minimum fitness standards? > > Enforcement of the fitness standards went out of the window some time ago when the 2010 SDSR caused crippling people shortages in just about every function.
I put a few £ on him at long odds and I have laid half of it off. He is far too sensible to appeal to Tory members.
I admit to being surprised he has come out against no deal as it seems both toxic with the members and theres nothing eksectgry can realistically do even if he us right. But fair play to him for surprising me.
> @DavidL said: > > @FF43 said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > The only way to get a deal through or any other definitive* Brexit outcome is where a crisis makes the alternative look worse. Voters and politicians only accept damage limitation if they first accept the situation is damaging enough to require limitation. > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
===========
I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we.
Well I have heard it said that Hunt is on the autistic spectrum. That does perhaps fit and also suggests he's highly intelligent.
I suspect he 'might' be a little less emotionally intelligent. Although he's showing some astuteness at the moment.
He also has a brilliant wife. I mean, really savvy.
In normal conditions I would suggest that the Party would react to recent events by not electing another female leader for a long long time and not electing an Etonian. But who knows?
> @kle4 said: > > @CD13 said: > > > Mr L, > > > > > > I fear you're being optimistic about the EU's attitude. I have never believed negotiations would be straightforward. The EU negotiators were employed to get the best deal for the remaining twenty seven, not to be Mr Nice Guy. If we concede something, they will take it happily. It will be a sign of weakness. > > > > > > At the end of the negotiations, they will be judged on what they have achieved, not how nice they've been. > > > > > > The niceness is side dish not the main meal. > > > > Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness". > > If it would be a simple matter to rejoin people would not fight so hard to avoid even a BINO. They know instead that it might prove very hard indeed, regardless of how closely aligned we are.
I was looking at this from the EU point of view. Do they want one of their largest export markets with by far the largest and most sophisticated financial services industry in their time zone, with more Universities in the top 10 than they have collectively in the top 100, wealthy enough to be a net contributor to the budget and with small but effective armed forces as a member in due course? We may come with some hassle but if you want hassle try Hungary or, increasingly, Italy.
> @kle4 said: > > @eek said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > @Foxy said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through. > > > > > > > > > > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA. > > > > > > > > > > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards. > > > > > > > > Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end. > > > > > > And how does that work under WTO rules - whatever we unilaterally charge in tariffs to the EU (none) is then the maximum we can charge other countries. > > > > > > One reason why South Korea has agreements with most countries is because their tariffs are the maximum allowed unless you have a trade agreement - to get to that position we need a signed deal with the EU before we start elsewhere otherwise the maximum we can charge is the 0% we are charging the EU. > > > > We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes. > > > > Don't get me wrong. May's deal is a much better way forward and reduces uncertainty considerably by being comprehensive. But the perils of no deal are being vastly overstated, not least by Hunt. > > Not politically they are not.
Nor economically - it only looks good because people aren't thinking through the consequences of the decisions that would have to be made.
> We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
Brexit Party presumably are going to storm it?
But if you add up the support for the Greens, Lib Dems, Labour and the Monster raving loonies they will have got more votes so the Brexit party won’t really have won at all........
The other thing about Mordaunt is that she shows signs of human skills all the other candidates lack - except Rory Stewart. She's made a point of keeping up with people in former jobs and departments that she used to work in, apparently, and shows some sign of giving a damn.
> @kle4 said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > For a Tory a very intelligent interview with Hunt on R4 > > > > > > I'm sure I've seen some people on here describe Hunt as dim, but he got a First at Oxford and speaks several languages. You could have called him many things, and some infamously did, but I wouldn't say that 'stupid' is one of them. > > People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we.
And I guess my "intelligent" was really shorthand for perceptive, self-aware and showing some good judgement. All characteristics that are in short supply in current politics.
Almost all of them have some degree of intelligence, and wouldn't have been selected and elected without it. But so much of it is wasted by being applied to arguing that the world is as they might want it to be.
> People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we.
Well I have heard it said that Hunt is on the autistic spectrum. That does perhaps fit and also suggests he's highly intelligent.
I suspect he 'might' be a little less emotionally intelligent. Although he's showing some astuteness at the moment.
He also has a brilliant wife. I mean, really savvy.
In normal conditions I would suggest that the Party would react to recent events by not electing another female leader for a long long time and not electing an Etonian. But who knows?
People suggest others might be on the spectrum all the time, I must say such armchair diagnosis really irritates me particularly when (not in your case) it is as part of veiled criticism eg they are really awkward like they are on the spectrum.
> @FF43 said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @FF43 said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > The only way to get a deal through or any other definitive* Brexit outcome is where a crisis makes the alternative look worse. Voters and politicians only accept damage limitation if they first accept the situation is damaging enough to require limitation. > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > =========== > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> @DavidL said: > > @kle4 said: > > Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness". > > > > If it would be a simple matter to rejoin people would not fight so hard to avoid even a BINO. They know instead that it might prove very hard indeed, regardless of how closely aligned we are. > > I was looking at this from the EU point of view. Do they want one of their largest export markets with by far the largest and most sophisticated financial services industry in their time zone, with more Universities in the top 10 than they have collectively in the top 100, wealthy enough to be a net contributor to the budget and with small but effective armed forces as a member in due course? We may come with some hassle but if you want hassle try Hungary or, increasingly, Italy.
Wealthy enough to be a net contributor but so poor that parts of the country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe..
And while we should be focussed on the latter we actually are wasting our time trying to square an impossible circle.
> People suggest others might be on the spectrum all the time, I must say such armchair diagnosis really irritates me particularly when (not in your case) it is as part of veiled criticism eg they are really awkward like they are on the spectrum. > > Anyway, off to work!
Actually it came from someone who worked for him and I have a lot of friends around his nexus.
I don't have any problem with it. We all have different learning styles (pace Gove) and some people on the autistic spectrum can see things in a way that others can't. That might be what's needed with the Brexit conundrum.
And I have money on him, so I'm hardly critical of him
> @Mysticrose said: > Suzanne Evans slapped down Emily Thornberry on Sunday night for proposing a referendum as, she said, it would split the Leave vote. > > It's surely worth countering this. Either Suzanne Evans is being a typical politician i.e. a downright liar. Or she is incredibly stupid. > > The fairest way to have a referendum must surely be to have an opening question, or round, with the straight Remain vs Leave question. > > Only then, if Leave wins that, would it go to the options as the 2nd question: No Deal, the Current WA (which is the EU deal) or a Customs Union alternative. > > If every citizen is capable of filling in a passport application, which includes multiple pathways and complicated options, then a simply 2 Stage vote really shouldn't be beyond us.
That is how we got into the current mess, exacerbated by not yet having had the second stage.
What is needed at the final stage is a specific proposition for change, put against the current position. The question is how to identify the proposition.
> @Mysticrose said: > > @IanB2 said: > > > Almost all of them have some degree of intelligence, > > Some of them, on the other hand, are really stupid. > > Andrew Bridgen for instance.
He was presumably clever enough to appeal to the prejudices of those who selected him. Or matched them by accident.
Our broken voting system and its safe seats does provide the idiots of the world with a degree of over-representation.
> @eek said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @kle4 said: > > > Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness". > > > > > > If it would be a simple matter to rejoin people would not fight so hard to avoid even a BINO. They know instead that it might prove very hard indeed, regardless of how closely aligned we are. > > > > I was looking at this from the EU point of view. Do they want one of their largest export markets with by far the largest and most sophisticated financial services industry in their time zone, with more Universities in the top 10 than they have collectively in the top 100, wealthy enough to be a net contributor to the budget and with small but effective armed forces as a member in due course? We may come with some hassle but if you want hassle try Hungary or, increasingly, Italy. > > Wealthy enough to be a net contributor but so poor that parts of the country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe.. > > And while we should be focussed on the latter we actually are wasting our time trying to square an impossible circle.
Our political class are busy demonstrating beyond any doubt that they are incapable of running the proverbial whelk stall and have made an enormous meal of this. But yes, there is plenty else that we need to be getting on with.
"Brian Monteith MEP, a Conservative member of the Scottish parliament between 1999 and 2007 and a columnist for the Scotsman newspaper, said it was “neither here not there” that he lives in Trevien in southern France. He was one of two Brexit party candidates to win in the north-east. "
> > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > =========== > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
=========
I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
> @Mysticrose said: > > @kle4 said: > > > People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we. > > Well I have heard it said that Hunt is on the autistic spectrum. That does perhaps fit and also suggests he's highly intelligent. > > I suspect he 'might' be a little less emotionally intelligent. Although he's showing some astuteness at the moment. > > He also has a brilliant wife. I mean, really savvy. > > In normal conditions I would suggest that the Party would react to recent events by not electing another female leader for a long long time and not electing an Etonian. But who knows?
Autistic people aren't all savants. Some are geniuses, some are thick as shit. Most are in between. Like everyone else.
> @FF43 said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @FF43 said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > ========= > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
> @DavidL said: > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > >
I agree with your analysis but if leavers are now telling us that No Deal is the preferred option having dismissed the possibility as "Project Fear" during the referendum then it has to be ratified by a final vote before proceeding.
It is indefensible to win a vote by under 4% and then proceed with a form of Brexit that we were assured would not be the case. If leave had campaigned on that platform in 2016 do you think they would have won?
If people show that is what they they want No Deal in a second vote then fine but, as Gove correctly points out, there is no mandate for No Deal as it stands. Thursday's vote reinforces that view
> > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
> >
> > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
>
> But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote
>
> Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
You think that, starting from a minority government, the Tories could win an election with a 12% swing to the LDs? That’s an.... interesting view.
> @Mysticrose said: > > @kle4 said: > > > People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we. > > Well I have heard it said that Hunt is on the autistic spectrum. That does perhaps fit and also suggests he's highly intelligent. > > I suspect he 'might' be a little less emotionally intelligent. Although he's showing some astuteness at the moment. > > He also has a brilliant wife. I mean, really savvy. > > In normal conditions I would suggest that the Party would react to recent events by not electing another female leader for a long long time and not electing an Etonian. But who knows?
Think people too readily do amateur psychoanalysis! I've met him, seems at least averagely empathetic etc. He'd be a perfectly reasonable PM but not perhaps one to stir the mob who seem to have infected parts of the Tory membership.
> @DavidL said: > We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes.
Wouldn't that need to be ratified? Because even if it was agreed in 5 minutes, presumably with the EU mysteriously abandoning its insistence on getting the Irish situation nailed down first, it couldn't be ratified in 5 minutes.
> @FF43 said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @FF43 said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > ========= > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
Jeremy Hunt has done a great service to the leadership race by putting no deal at the heart of the candidates debate and it needs a plausable response from the other candidates and not the asinine response by McVey that we no deal on the 31st October
To be fair McVey is not going to win the race and can get away with her vote losing strategy, but other candidates must understand that without a serious response their premiership could last, at best, just a few weeks
And as for Malthouse assertion he will reopen the WDA and sort out the backstop is for the birds
I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
> @OllyT said: > > @DavidL said: > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > I agree with your analysis but if leavers are now telling us that No Deal is the preferred option having dismissed the possibility as "Project Fear" during the referendum then it has to be ratified by a final vote before proceeding. > > It is indefensible to win a vote by under 4% and then proceed with a form of Brexit that we were assured would not be the case. If leave had campaigned on that platform in 2016 do you think they would have won? > > If people show that is what they they want No Deal in a second vote then fine but, as Gove correctly points out, there is no mandate for No Deal as it stands. Thursday's vote reinforces that view
There is an alternative that is more consistent with the result. MPs just have to vote for it. But they refuse to do so because they think that they have the right to defy the people.
> @edmundintokyo said: > > @DavidL said: > > We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes. > > Wouldn't that need to be ratified? Because even if it was agreed in 5 minutes, presumably with the EU mysteriously abandoning its insistence on getting the Irish situation nailed down first, it couldn't be ratified in 5 minutes. >
In DavidL's world it does seem that nothing is a problem...
> @Richard_Tyndall said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...? > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20 > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
Not that much difference and those Labour areas are mainly working class pro Leave Brexit Party target areas with a handful of BAME
I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
There is also a fair bit of difference between Parliament and a talking shop cum gravy train, ooops, the European Parliament.
Would be funny though in a way if we had yet another MP claiming he wanted Brexit and then persistently voting to Remain because he didn't like the Withdrawal Agreement.
> @Roger said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...? > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20 > > Have BP chosen their candidate yet or is this an opportunity for Nige?
> @DavidL said: > > @OllyT said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path. > > > > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated. > > > > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't. > > > > > > > > > > I agree with your analysis but if leavers are now telling us that No Deal is the preferred option having dismissed the possibility as "Project Fear" during the referendum then it has to be ratified by a final vote before proceeding. > > > > It is indefensible to win a vote by under 4% and then proceed with a form of Brexit that we were assured would not be the case. If leave had campaigned on that platform in 2016 do you think they would have won? > > > > If people show that is what they they want No Deal in a second vote then fine but, as Gove correctly points out, there is no mandate for No Deal as it stands. Thursday's vote reinforces that view > > There is an alternative that is more consistent with the result. MPs just have to vote for it. But they refuse to do so because they think that they have the right to defy the people.
Not quite. The ERG members need to vote for it - there is no requirement for ANY none Conservative MP to vote for it...
This is a mess of the Tories making and they are currently suffering the consequences of not being united...
the fact they will be punished for the end result is a different matter for the (near) future...
> @not_on_fire said: > > @eek said: > > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > > > > > > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution. > > > > > > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote > > > > > > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election. > > > > 57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket > > You think that, starting from a minority government, the Tories could win an election with a 12% swing to the LDs? That’s an.... interesting view.
Yes if Labour sees a bigger swing to the LDs and the Tories pick up Labour Leave voters under FPTP of course
It's also the case that people very often overestimate their own symptoms of psychological conditions (and likewise for others). The relentless drive to pathologise every quirk and make every slight eccentricity a condition hasn't helped this.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @FF43 said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > > > ========= > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works. > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
Remainers have compromised. See the Scottish Government's sensible proposals from late 2016. But they were ignored. And so the people involved have shifted their party's stance to obstruct Brexit. When the losing side offers an olive branch, it's quite the provocation to have it batted aside.
> > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
>
> > >
>
> > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
>
> >
>
> > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote
>
> >
>
> > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
>
>
>
> 57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
>
> You think that, starting from a minority government, the Tories could win an election with a 12% swing to the LDs? That’s an.... interesting view.
Yes if Labour sees a bigger swing to the LDs and the Tories pick up Labour Leave voters under FPTP of course
Simply not going to happen. The Labour Leave voters will ether vote Brexit Party or stick with Labour.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @FF43 said: > > > @DavidL said: > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > > > ========= > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works. > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @Morris_Dancer said: > > Mr. Meeks, both sides are very willing for their adversaries to compromise. And it's jolly unfair they haven't. > > So far Leavers have shown themselves to be utterly clueless about what Leave entailed. Asking Remainers to sort it out for them is a bit rich.
Look on the bright side; there used to be over 17 million of them who apparently were feeling betrayed. Now at least we are down to fewer than 6 million.
> @DavidL said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > @FF43 said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > > > > > ========= > > > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works. > > > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either. > > The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
Why should Remainer MPs implement a deal that Leavers quite clearly detest and allow themselves to form party of Leavers’ next betrayal myth?
> @DavidL said: > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > @FF43 said: > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > > > > > ========= > > > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works. > > > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either. > > The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
Once again you are asking for people who don't need to solve the problem to solve the problem for you...
For instance my local MP refused to support May's deal because as a Labour MP she asked her constituents and they said it wasn't good enough. So she went beyond what she was elected to do and still continued to oppose the deal.
> @HYUFD said: > > @not_on_fire said: > > > @eek said: > > > > > > @Jonathan said: > > > > > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution. > > > > > > > > > > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote > > > > > > > > > > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election. > > > > > > > > 57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket > > > > You think that, starting from a minority government, the Tories could win an election with a 12% swing to the LDs? That’s an.... interesting view. > > Yes if Labour sees a bigger swing to the LDs and the Tories pick up Labour Leave voters under FPTP of course
Even IF the Tories could unite behind such a platform - and all the evidence suggests otherwise - that depends on Farage humbly standing aside, despite his just achieved success, and giving them a free run. Something tells me that Mr Farage isn't like that.
"She (Diana Glover) was responsible for gathering the signatories for a special meeting of the Party’s National Convention to consider a motion of No Confidence in the Leader. This was to be considered on June 15th. Glover now accepts that there is “no need” for this to take place. But she proposes that the meeting goes ahead with a different item of business:
“Each leadership contender needs to be put under the spotlight of democracy and be questioned by the membership and possibly wider about their policies, vision and route to exiting the EU. This can be happening simultaneously to the MPs voting…We need a leader who believes in post Brexit Britain and its benefits, who will ensure we leave either with a good deal or if the EU will not change their current position be prepared to leave on WTO terms. They must be able to articulate a positive Brexit.”
In other words a hustings. We understand that her request is likely to be agreed."
May be worthwhile considering when considering the likely candidates. While the MPs could stitch things up by sending two through to the party, the above makes it clear the party expects it wishes to be taken into account.
> @AlastairMeeks said: > > @DavidL said: > > > @AlastairMeeks said: > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > @FF43 said: > > > > > > > @DavidL said: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities. > > > > > > > > > > > > =========== > > > > > > > > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think. > > > > > > > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised. > > > > > > > > ========= > > > > > > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works. > > > > > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either. > > > > The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else? > > Why should Remainer MPs implement a deal that Leavers quite clearly detest and allow themselves to form party of Leavers’ next betrayal myth?
Because they promised, when elected in 2017, to honour the result of the referendum and this is the least harmful way (from their perspective) of doing so. Who cares what the loons think or say? Their idiocy is not an excuse not to do the right thing. Their behavior is disgraceful.
> @ydoethur said: > > @HYUFD said: > > > > @NickPalmer said: > > > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...? > > > > > > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday > > > > > > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920 > > > > > > I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas. > > There is also a fair bit of difference between Parliament and a talking shop cum gravy train, ooops, the European Parliament. > > Would be funny though in a way if we had yet another MP claiming he wanted Brexit and then persistently voting to Remain because he didn't like the Withdrawal Agreement.
Voting against the withdrawal agreement is not voting remain. I assume you're merely trolling, but just in case you are genuinely ignorant of that fact, I thought I'd point it out.
Comments
"How is having a General Election a policy? Don’t you need a policy in order to have a General Election?"
There's a lot of that nonsense about. It's because it's a free hit for the people saying it. For Labour, it's an extra chance to win a majority, poor though that is.
In the same way, another referendum is an extra chance for the Remainers, no matter that it would solve nothing. If Leave wins … many will still not accept it. If Remain wins, why not another referendum next week? It's what the LDs wanted in 2016.
It's the same with the extension? What was it for? breathing space for Mrs May. And what has it achieved?
It's an adult version of a child's tantrum. "I want my own way."
> The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
>
> If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
>
> The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The only way to get a deal through or any other definitive* Brexit outcome is where a crisis makes the alternative look worse. Voters and politicians only accept damage limitation if they first accept the situation is damaging enough to require limitation.
* No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
Oh and No Deal being an essential element of negotiation is like saying no food is an essential element of living. That's one of the delusions that needs to go if we are to get anywhere.
> Mordaunt is the mysterious figure in this race.
"THE" mysterious figure? I think not.
Well worth listening to on radio 5.
> > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > Mordaunt is the mysterious figure in this race.
>
> "THE" mysterious figure? I think not.
Well, haven't all the others expected thrown their hat in the ring so far, or strongly tipped to.
Her views are also mysterious beyond supporting Brexit, and from a personal point of view, she's mysteriously somewhat attractive for a Tory lady.
> > @Jonathan said:
> > If you go to the country immediately you force MPs to quit or stand on your manifesto. Most MPs will cling to nanny.
>
> There is no way the Tories can make a unified choice between a deal or no deal. And no way they can contemplate an election when huge chunks of their former supporters are saying they will stick with the BXP and the LibDems.
The Tories can unify around trying again for a Deal before October, including trying to amend the backstop with the EU and if that fails refusing to extend beyond October and then preparing for No Deal
> Boris is very quiet at the moment. Is he hoping for a coronation?
>
> Perhaps there's a reason why the favourite never gets the crown.
Johnson's chief appeal is his electability. Every time he speaks is a reminder of his weaknesses. He's no longer popular enough to demonstrate his popularity by meeting members of the public. Rory Stewart can do that because no-one knows who he is.
> > @eek said:
> > > @Nigelb said:
> > >
> > > Do you really imagine that any administration pushing through no deal would be so pragmatic ? Even if it were to command a parliamentary majority...
> > >
> > > Such an approach would be labelled betrayal by most proponents of no deal.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > While we in desperation might have some urgency in getting a trade deal with the EU why / how would the EU have the same urgency...
> >
> > One of the biggest screw ups we have done with Brexit is not thinking about how the other half will think...
>
> Their attitude will be influenced by our attitude. That is why looking after their citizens, paying our debts, generally being cooperative in NI etc, are so important. If we act in a grown up manner then I think we can assume that they will respond in kind. Of course the reverse is also true: if we act like arseholes they will retaliate. I think we can say that that is the pattern of the negotiations to date. Given May's ineptitude the deal she was offered was far more balanced than it might have been.
In a No Deal world - attitude doesn't equal priority. You really are clutching at straws here. There is no reason to think that things that are a priority for us on November 1st will be a priority for the EU....
Mind you, your argument is better than the one I heard yesterday where Brexit would result in the reopening of shipyards on the Tyne. Which would require both miraclous improvements in UK productivity or very low wages.
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > > Mordaunt is the mysterious figure in this race.
> >
> > "THE" mysterious figure? I think not.
>
> Well, haven't all the others expected thrown their hat in the ring so far, or strongly tipped to.
Oh, you think its mysterious that she hasn't actually declared yet? I thought the mystery was how she could be so deluded as to believe that she was up to it. A delusion that is very widely shared.
May did offer to remove citizens' rights as an issue for everyone by agreeing to grandfather in residency rights and so forth ahead of any negotiations, and the EU declined. Nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.
Now there's no agreement, but the EU won't negotiate on anything. The 'deal' was done. Except if we wanted to subject ourselves to a customs union. But, apart from that, negotiations were impossible because we'd (ahem) 'agreed' a deal. It was a point of principle...
> I wonder why Labour use so many spokespeople-nearly always female-who sound completely stupid? They have plenty of articulate MPs so it's clearly a choice someone is making. Anyone who uses the word 'PARTY' where the 'r' and 't' is silent is going to sound stupid.
>
> The one I'm listening at the moment thinks Labour did well in the Euros!
Their assessment of how the election went aside, that's how people talk. I think it's a credit to the Labour Party that that they have people who don't sound like identikit BBC home counties lawyers.
If you're from a posh bit of Surrey or Hampshire, you still have an accent. And no accent is correct.
> > @DavidL said:
> > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> >
> > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> >
> > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> >
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> The only way to get a deal through or any other definitive* Brexit outcome is where a crisis makes the alternative look worse. Voters and politicians only accept damage limitation if they first accept the situation is damaging enough to require limitation.
>
> * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
Which doesn't mean I think he will win, just that those are good odds. I think it's value.
> We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
Brexit Party presumably are going to storm it?
I fear you're being optimistic about the EU's attitude. I have never believed negotiations would be straightforward. The EU negotiators were employed to get the best deal for the remaining twenty seven, not to be Mr Nice Guy. If we concede something, they will take it happily. It will be a sign of weakness.
At the end of the negotiations, they will be judged on what they have achieved, not how nice they've been.
The niceness is side dish not the main meal.
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @Foxy said:
>
> > >
> > > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through.
> > >
> > > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA.
> > >
> > > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
> >
> > Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
>
> And how does that work under WTO rules - whatever we unilaterally charge in tariffs to the EU (none) is then the maximum we can charge other countries.
>
> One reason why South Korea has agreements with most countries is because their tariffs are the maximum allowed unless you have a trade agreement - to get to that position we need a signed deal with the EU before we start elsewhere otherwise the maximum we can charge is the 0% we are charging the EU.
We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes.
Don't get me wrong. May's deal is a much better way forward and reduces uncertainty considerably by being comprehensive. But the perils of no deal are being vastly overstated, not least by Hunt.
Thatd be like saying criticising labour and the Tories for being crap is untrue because the reason one is crap may be different to the other.
This twisting on a dime to criticise the spinning of one side but not the spinning of the other is hilarious and unconvincing. Spin is spin.
> > @NickPalmer said:
> > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
>
> Brexit Party presumably are going to storm it?
The smart money should now go on LibDems coming second.
It's surely worth countering this. Either Suzanne Evans is being a typical politician i.e. a downright liar. Or she is incredibly stupid.
The fairest way to have a referendum must surely be to have an opening question, or round, with the straight Remain vs Leave question.
Only then, if Leave wins that, would it go to the options as the 2nd question: No Deal, the Current WA (which is the EU deal) or a Customs Union alternative.
If every citizen is capable of filling in a passport application, which includes multiple pathways and complicated options, then a simply 2 Stage vote really shouldn't be beyond us.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/04/jeremy-hunt-is-clearly-on-manoeuvres-and-hes-also-1001-to-be-next-tory-leader/
*Cough*
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/26/my-1001-tip-for-next-pm-is-setting-his-sights-on-number-10/
Ordinarily I would still expect Labour to win with the Faragistas splitting the votes of their rivals, but they are in a huge mess and the circumstances of the by-election are less than encouraging for them.
Edited extra bit: and cheers for that tip, incidentally, likewise Mr. Meeks for the Gove tip (think I backed him at about 26).
> > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > > @WhisperingOracle said:
> > > > Mordaunt is the mysterious figure in this race.
> > >
> > > "THE" mysterious figure? I think not.
> >
> > Well, haven't all the others expected thrown their hat in the ring so far, or strongly tipped to.
>
> Oh, you think its mysterious that she hasn't actually declared yet? I thought the mystery was how she could be so deluded as to believe that she was up to it. A delusion that is very widely shared.
Esther McVey has shown that absolutely no one should think the office of PM exceeds their ability.
> Suzanne Evans slapped down Emily Thornberry on Sunday night for proposing a referendum as, she said, it would split the Leave vote.
>
> It's surely worth countering this. Either Suzanne Evans is being a typical politician i.e. a downright liar. Or she is incredibly stupid.
>
> The fairest way to have a referendum must surely be to have an opening question, or round, with the straight Remain vs Leave question.
>
> Only then, if Leave wins that, would it go to the options as the 2nd question: No Deal, the Current WA (which is the EU deal) or a Customs Union alternative.
>
> If every citizen is capable of filling in a passport application, which includes multiple pathways and complicated options, then a simply 2 Stage vote really shouldn't be beyond us.
The order of the questions affects the results. Fairer to have an instant runoff. If you have multiple outcomes, put them all at the same time.
Cameron's crime was to stop the CS doing its job, and why he should be languishing in the Tower, not writing his autobiography.
> You can get 14-1 on Jeremy Hunt with Betfred.
>
>
>
> Which doesn't mean I think he will win, just that those are good odds. I think it's value.
>
> *Cough*
>
> http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/04/jeremy-hunt-is-clearly-on-manoeuvres-and-hes-also-1001-to-be-next-tory-leader/
>
> *Cough*
>
> http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/26/my-1001-tip-for-next-pm-is-setting-his-sights-on-number-10/
Brilliant. I love it! Good luck.
He's still value at 14-1, so at 100-1 ... wow
> Mr L,
>
> I fear you're being optimistic about the EU's attitude. I have never believed negotiations would be straightforward. The EU negotiators were employed to get the best deal for the remaining twenty seven, not to be Mr Nice Guy. If we concede something, they will take it happily. It will be a sign of weakness.
>
> At the end of the negotiations, they will be judged on what they have achieved, not how nice they've been.
>
> The niceness is side dish not the main meal.
Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness".
It is the Wordpress URL creator, it removes symbols from the headline into the URL so it only displays only numbers and characters.
> > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> > You can get 14-1 on Jeremy Hunt with Betfred.
> >
> >
> >
> > Which doesn't mean I think he will win, just that those are good odds. I think it's value.
> >
> > *Cough*
> >
> > http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/04/jeremy-hunt-is-clearly-on-manoeuvres-and-hes-also-1001-to-be-next-tory-leader/
> >
> > *Cough*
> >
> > http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/26/my-1001-tip-for-next-pm-is-setting-his-sights-on-number-10/
>
> Brilliant. I love it! Good luck.
>
> He's still value at 14-1, so at 100-1 ... wow
I put a few £ on him at long odds and I have laid half of it off. He is far too sensible to appeal to Tory members.
> For a Tory a very intelligent interview with Hunt on R4
I'm sure I've seen some people on here describe Hunt as dim, but he got a First at Oxford and speaks several languages. You could have called him many things, and some infamously did, but I wouldn't say that 'stupid' is one of them.
> > @Mysticrose said:
> > Suzanne Evans slapped down Emily Thornberry on Sunday night for proposing a referendum as, she said, it would split the Leave vote.
> >
> > It's surely worth countering this. Either Suzanne Evans is being a typical politician i.e. a downright liar. Or she is incredibly stupid.
> >
> > The fairest way to have a referendum must surely be to have an opening question, or round, with the straight Remain vs Leave question.
> >
> > Only then, if Leave wins that, would it go to the options as the 2nd question: No Deal, the Current WA (which is the EU deal) or a Customs Union alternative.
> >
> > If every citizen is capable of filling in a passport application, which includes multiple pathways and complicated options, then a simply 2 Stage vote really shouldn't be beyond us.
>
> The order of the questions affects the results. Fairer to have an instant runoff. If you have multiple outcomes, put them all at the same time.
Equally not all citizens can fill in a passport application correctly - the post office and other companies offer a checking service for money and people use it, equally others may help people fill in passport applications.
And you only have to look at any none single cross ballot count to see how many people don't follow the instructions correctly...
1. Conservative MPs
2. Conservative members
So we have to try and work out what they're likely to do, not what we would, nor what the rest of the country would.
> Mr. B2, could the yellows win it?
In by-election winning days of old, for sure. There's always been LibDem activity there and they still have a small group of councillors. But they never got beyond 20% in a GE.
And there is a significant ethnic mix in P'Boro that wont play to BXP's advantage. But with the LibDems now a proxy for a strong remain vote, it doesn't now feel like a constituency that is ripe for a LibDem win, especially with the Tories now down and out and Labour likely to throw everything at it (the circumstances for a LibDem win are the opposite - Labour down and out with the Tories able to split the right wing vote with BXP).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/chaos-makes-good-comedy-inside-world-matt-brexit-cartoons/
> > @ydoethur said:
>
> > In a crowded field where a handful of votes could avoid early elimination, there is huge pressure to be distinctive, and a lot of competition for publicity and air time.
>
> >
>
> > S/Lt (Acting) Mordaunt has been rigged for silent running for some time now. I wonder when she'll surface and hoist colours.
>
> >
>
> > Out of curiosity, why do you mock Mordaunt for claiming she was in the Navy Reserve, when she was, and never seem to criticise Thornberry for having claimed to be an army colonel when she wasn't?
>
>
>
> or Francois for claiming to be a "veteran" when he was briefly in the TA?
>
> How on earth was somebody as fat as Francois in the TA? I thought they had minimum fitness standards?
>
> Enforcement of the fitness standards went out of the window some time ago when the 2010 SDSR caused crippling people shortages in just about every function.
Is that Mark Francois during his time in the TA?
> > @FF43 said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> > >
> > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> > >
> > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >
> > The only way to get a deal through or any other definitive* Brexit outcome is where a crisis makes the alternative look worse. Voters and politicians only accept damage limitation if they first accept the situation is damaging enough to require limitation.
> >
> > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
>
> I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
===========
I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we.
Well I have heard it said that Hunt is on the autistic spectrum. That does perhaps fit and also suggests he's highly intelligent.
I suspect he 'might' be a little less emotionally intelligent. Although he's showing some astuteness at the moment.
He also has a brilliant wife. I mean, really savvy.
In normal conditions I would suggest that the Party would react to recent events by not electing another female leader for a long long time and not electing an Etonian. But who knows?
> > @CD13 said:
>
> > Mr L,
>
> >
>
> > I fear you're being optimistic about the EU's attitude. I have never believed negotiations would be straightforward. The EU negotiators were employed to get the best deal for the remaining twenty seven, not to be Mr Nice Guy. If we concede something, they will take it happily. It will be a sign of weakness.
>
> >
>
> > At the end of the negotiations, they will be judged on what they have achieved, not how nice they've been.
>
> >
>
> > The niceness is side dish not the main meal.
>
>
>
> Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness".
>
> If it would be a simple matter to rejoin people would not fight so hard to avoid even a BINO. They know instead that it might prove very hard indeed, regardless of how closely aligned we are.
I was looking at this from the EU point of view. Do they want one of their largest export markets with by far the largest and most sophisticated financial services industry in their time zone, with more Universities in the top 10 than they have collectively in the top 100, wealthy enough to be a net contributor to the budget and with small but effective armed forces as a member in due course? We may come with some hassle but if you want hassle try Hungary or, increasingly, Italy.
> > @eek said:
>
> > > @DavidL said:
>
> > > > @Foxy said:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Part of the reason that negotiations with Labour foundered (apart from Mrs May's lack of people skills) is that Labour could not agree a deal with a PM with a political longevity measured in days. If Hunt was actually chosen by MPs and members, he could agree that PD with Labour, to get that through.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Saying No Deal is a negotiating position is asinine, and it always was. It is a departure without a destination and requires a multiplicity of mini deals, starting with the three issues of the WA.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > A very hard WTO Brexit plan was possible 3 years ago, but it would have needed an acceptance of realities, such as a NI border or an Irish Sea one, a need for massive construction and recruitment for customs as well as a plan to restructure the manufacturing economy. The Tories were not willing to either face those realities or do the hard yards.
>
> > >
>
> > > Whilst preparation in terms of infrastructure etc would have been sensible (and was blocked by Hammond) I think you exaggerate the difficulties. If we choose to accept that lorries from the EU carry goods that meet our (EU) standards that is a matter for us. If we choose not to apply tariffs ditto. There's a lot we can do unilaterally. It is then up to the EU to decide if they want the problems at their end.
>
> >
>
> > And how does that work under WTO rules - whatever we unilaterally charge in tariffs to the EU (none) is then the maximum we can charge other countries.
>
> >
>
> > One reason why South Korea has agreements with most countries is because their tariffs are the maximum allowed unless you have a trade agreement - to get to that position we need a signed deal with the EU before we start elsewhere otherwise the maximum we can charge is the 0% we are charging the EU.
>
>
>
> We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes.
>
>
>
> Don't get me wrong. May's deal is a much better way forward and reduces uncertainty considerably by being comprehensive. But the perils of no deal are being vastly overstated, not least by Hunt.
>
> Not politically they are not.
Nor economically - it only looks good because people aren't thinking through the consequences of the decisions that would have to be made.
> > @IanB2 said:
>
> > For a Tory a very intelligent interview with Hunt on R4
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm sure I've seen some people on here describe Hunt as dim, but he got a First at Oxford and speaks several languages. You could have called him many things, and some infamously did, but I wouldn't say that 'stupid' is one of them.
>
> People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we.
And I guess my "intelligent" was really shorthand for perceptive, self-aware and showing some good judgement. All characteristics that are in short supply in current politics.
Almost all of them have some degree of intelligence, and wouldn't have been selected and elected without it. But so much of it is wasted by being applied to arguing that the world is as they might want it to be.
Anyway, off to work!
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @FF43 said:
> > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> > > >
> > > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> > > >
> > > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > The only way to get a deal through or any other definitive* Brexit outcome is where a crisis makes the alternative look worse. Voters and politicians only accept damage limitation if they first accept the situation is damaging enough to require limitation.
> > >
> > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> >
> > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
>
> ===========
>
> I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
> > @kle4 said:
> > Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness".
> >
> > If it would be a simple matter to rejoin people would not fight so hard to avoid even a BINO. They know instead that it might prove very hard indeed, regardless of how closely aligned we are.
>
> I was looking at this from the EU point of view. Do they want one of their largest export markets with by far the largest and most sophisticated financial services industry in their time zone, with more Universities in the top 10 than they have collectively in the top 100, wealthy enough to be a net contributor to the budget and with small but effective armed forces as a member in due course? We may come with some hassle but if you want hassle try Hungary or, increasingly, Italy.
Wealthy enough to be a net contributor but so poor that parts of the country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe..
And while we should be focussed on the latter we actually are wasting our time trying to square an impossible circle.
> People suggest others might be on the spectrum all the time, I must say such armchair diagnosis really irritates me particularly when (not in your case) it is as part of veiled criticism eg they are really awkward like they are on the spectrum.
>
> Anyway, off to work!
Actually it came from someone who worked for him and I have a lot of friends around his nexus.
I don't have any problem with it. We all have different learning styles (pace Gove) and some people on the autistic spectrum can see things in a way that others can't. That might be what's needed with the Brexit conundrum.
And I have money on him, so I'm hardly critical of him
> > @Mysticrose said:
> > > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> > > You can get 14-1 on Jeremy Hunt with Betfred.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Which doesn't mean I think he will win, just that those are good odds. I think it's value.
> > >
> > > *Cough*
> > >
> > > http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/04/jeremy-hunt-is-clearly-on-manoeuvres-and-hes-also-1001-to-be-next-tory-leader/
> > >
> > > *Cough*
> > >
> > > http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/26/my-1001-tip-for-next-pm-is-setting-his-sights-on-number-10/
> >
> > Brilliant. I love it! Good luck.
> >
> > He's still value at 14-1, so at 100-1 ... wow
>
> I put a few £ on him at long odds and I have laid half of it off. He is far too sensible to appeal to Tory members.
McVey at 50-1 must be good odds surely
> Suzanne Evans slapped down Emily Thornberry on Sunday night for proposing a referendum as, she said, it would split the Leave vote.
>
> It's surely worth countering this. Either Suzanne Evans is being a typical politician i.e. a downright liar. Or she is incredibly stupid.
>
> The fairest way to have a referendum must surely be to have an opening question, or round, with the straight Remain vs Leave question.
>
> Only then, if Leave wins that, would it go to the options as the 2nd question: No Deal, the Current WA (which is the EU deal) or a Customs Union alternative.
>
> If every citizen is capable of filling in a passport application, which includes multiple pathways and complicated options, then a simply 2 Stage vote really shouldn't be beyond us.
That is how we got into the current mess, exacerbated by not yet having had the second stage.
What is needed at the final stage is a specific proposition for change, put against the current position. The question is how to identify the proposition.
> Almost all of them have some degree of intelligence,
Some of them, on the other hand, are really stupid.
Andrew Bridgen for instance.
> > @IanB2 said:
>
> > Almost all of them have some degree of intelligence,
>
> Some of them, on the other hand, are really stupid.
>
> Andrew Bridgen for instance.
He was presumably clever enough to appeal to the prejudices of those who selected him. Or matched them by accident.
Our broken voting system and its safe seats does provide the idiots of the world with a degree of over-representation.
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @kle4 said:
> > > Then how do you explain May's deal? The EU made a number of concessions. Are you seriously suggesting that this was a result of skill, diligence or persuasiveness on our side? I think Tusk in particular wanted a deal that kept the UK close to the EU with the possibility open of rejoining in the future. I appreciate we can't count on his replacement having the same attitude but it is enlightened self interest, not "niceness".
> > >
> > > If it would be a simple matter to rejoin people would not fight so hard to avoid even a BINO. They know instead that it might prove very hard indeed, regardless of how closely aligned we are.
> >
> > I was looking at this from the EU point of view. Do they want one of their largest export markets with by far the largest and most sophisticated financial services industry in their time zone, with more Universities in the top 10 than they have collectively in the top 100, wealthy enough to be a net contributor to the budget and with small but effective armed forces as a member in due course? We may come with some hassle but if you want hassle try Hungary or, increasingly, Italy.
>
> Wealthy enough to be a net contributor but so poor that parts of the country are more economically deprived than parts of Eastern Europe..
>
> And while we should be focussed on the latter we actually are wasting our time trying to square an impossible circle.
Our political class are busy demonstrating beyond any doubt that they are incapable of running the proverbial whelk stall and have made an enormous meal of this. But yes, there is plenty else that we need to be getting on with.
> > @FF43 said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > >
> > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > >
> > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> >
> > ===========
> >
> > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
>
> You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
=========
I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
> > @kle4 said:
>
> > People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we.
>
> Well I have heard it said that Hunt is on the autistic spectrum. That does perhaps fit and also suggests he's highly intelligent.
>
> I suspect he 'might' be a little less emotionally intelligent. Although he's showing some astuteness at the moment.
>
> He also has a brilliant wife. I mean, really savvy.
>
> In normal conditions I would suggest that the Party would react to recent events by not electing another female leader for a long long time and not electing an Etonian. But who knows?
Autistic people aren't all savants. Some are geniuses, some are thick as shit. Most are in between. Like everyone else.
> We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @FF43 said:
> > > > @DavidL said:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > >
> > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > >
> > > ===========
> > >
> > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> >
> > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
>
> =========
>
> I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
> The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
>
> If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
>
> The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
>
>
I agree with your analysis but if leavers are now telling us that No Deal is the preferred option having dismissed the possibility as "Project Fear" during the referendum then it has to be ratified by a final vote before proceeding.
It is indefensible to win a vote by under 4% and then proceed with a form of Brexit that we were assured would not be the case. If leave had campaigned on that platform in 2016 do you think they would have won?
If people show that is what they they want No Deal in a second vote then fine but, as Gove correctly points out, there is no mandate for No Deal as it stands. Thursday's vote reinforces that view
> > @kle4 said:
>
> > People can be very bright and yet very dim at the same time, on different matters. Few of our politicians will be outright slow, but plenty might be pretty dim nevertheless, where it matters, as indeed might we.
>
> Well I have heard it said that Hunt is on the autistic spectrum. That does perhaps fit and also suggests he's highly intelligent.
>
> I suspect he 'might' be a little less emotionally intelligent. Although he's showing some astuteness at the moment.
>
> He also has a brilliant wife. I mean, really savvy.
>
> In normal conditions I would suggest that the Party would react to recent events by not electing another female leader for a long long time and not electing an Etonian. But who knows?
Think people too readily do amateur psychoanalysis! I've met him, seems at least averagely empathetic etc. He'd be a perfectly reasonable PM but not perhaps one to stir the mob who seem to have infected parts of the Tory membership.
> We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes.
Wouldn't that need to be ratified? Because even if it was agreed in 5 minutes, presumably with the EU mysteriously abandoning its insistence on getting the Irish situation nailed down first, it couldn't be ratified in 5 minutes.
> > @IanB2 said:
> > > @Mysticrose said:
> > > > @TheScreamingEagles said:
> > > > You can get 14-1 on Jeremy Hunt with Betfred.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which doesn't mean I think he will win, just that those are good odds. I think it's value.
> > > >
> > > > *Cough*
> > > >
> > > > http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/07/04/jeremy-hunt-is-clearly-on-manoeuvres-and-hes-also-1001-to-be-next-tory-leader/
> > > >
> > > > *Cough*
> > > >
> > > > http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/11/26/my-1001-tip-for-next-pm-is-setting-his-sights-on-number-10/
> > >
> > > Brilliant. I love it! Good luck.
> > >
> > > He's still value at 14-1, so at 100-1 ... wow
> >
> > I put a few £ on him at long odds and I have laid half of it off. He is far too sensible to appeal to Tory members.
>
> McVey at 50-1 must be good odds surely
Have to admit I am feeling more confident on my 100-1 tip on Esther. She is the most hard-line of the lot and, post-the EU elections, that is a plus.
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @FF43 said:
> > > > @DavidL said:
>
> > > > >
> > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > >
> > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > >
> > > ===========
> > >
> > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> >
> > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
>
> =========
>
> I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
Well not so far....
To be fair McVey is not going to win the race and can get away with her vote losing strategy, but other candidates must understand that without a serious response their premiership could last, at best, just a few weeks
And as for Malthouse assertion he will reopen the WDA and sort out the backstop is for the birds
> > @NickPalmer said:
> > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
>
> The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
>
> https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
> > @DavidL said:
> > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> >
> > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> >
> > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> >
> >
>
> I agree with your analysis but if leavers are now telling us that No Deal is the preferred option having dismissed the possibility as "Project Fear" during the referendum then it has to be ratified by a final vote before proceeding.
>
> It is indefensible to win a vote by under 4% and then proceed with a form of Brexit that we were assured would not be the case. If leave had campaigned on that platform in 2016 do you think they would have won?
>
> If people show that is what they they want No Deal in a second vote then fine but, as Gove correctly points out, there is no mandate for No Deal as it stands. Thursday's vote reinforces that view
There is an alternative that is more consistent with the result. MPs just have to vote for it. But they refuse to do so because they think that they have the right to defy the people.
> > @DavidL said:
> > We can have no tariffs with the EU so long as it is under a trade deal. A "temporary" deal agreeing not to impose tariffs until a more comprehensive deal is worked out should be a dawdle and could be agreed in 5 minutes.
>
> Wouldn't that need to be ratified? Because even if it was agreed in 5 minutes, presumably with the EU mysteriously abandoning its insistence on getting the Irish situation nailed down first, it couldn't be ratified in 5 minutes.
>
In DavidL's world it does seem that nothing is a problem...
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
> >
> > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
> >
> > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
>
> I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
Not that much difference and those Labour areas are mainly working class pro Leave Brexit Party target areas with a handful of BAME
Would be funny though in a way if we had yet another MP claiming he wanted Brexit and then persistently voting to Remain because he didn't like the Withdrawal Agreement.
> > @NickPalmer said:
> > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
>
> The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
>
> https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
Have BP chosen their candidate yet or is this an opportunity for Nige?
> > @HYUFD said:
> > > @NickPalmer said:
> > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
> >
> > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
> >
> > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920?s=20
>
> Have BP chosen their candidate yet or is this an opportunity for Nige?
Isnt it that millionaire business guy?
> > @OllyT said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > The problem with Hunt's positioning is how does he get a deal when May failed? The EU have said that they are not willing to reopen the deal we have (although they may look at the Political Declaration). The Commons are not going to pass May's deal or anything like it. I don't see a way forward down this path.
> > >
> > > If you accept that no deal is disastrous (and I don't although it is certainly sub optimal) the logic of your position is that we don't leave at all in that scenario. This is the consequence of taking no deal off the table, one of May's many, many mistakes. If that is his ultimate position then I think he has no chance in this race, none at all. If, when the choice becomes binary, he would choose a no deal then what he is saying is making the task and positioning of the party more difficult. Its another May mistake being repeated.
> > >
> > > The reality is, unfortunately, that you are either a leaver or you are not. If you rule out no deal and have no answer to the first question you are not. And this is a job to which remainers need not apply, especially after Sunday. FWIW a willingness to leave with no deal was always an essential element of the negotiation. Its why even May came out with the no deal is better than a bad deal trope. If even May, one of the worst negotiators ever, got that it's a bit sad that Hunt hasn't.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I agree with your analysis but if leavers are now telling us that No Deal is the preferred option having dismissed the possibility as "Project Fear" during the referendum then it has to be ratified by a final vote before proceeding.
> >
> > It is indefensible to win a vote by under 4% and then proceed with a form of Brexit that we were assured would not be the case. If leave had campaigned on that platform in 2016 do you think they would have won?
> >
> > If people show that is what they they want No Deal in a second vote then fine but, as Gove correctly points out, there is no mandate for No Deal as it stands. Thursday's vote reinforces that view
>
> There is an alternative that is more consistent with the result. MPs just have to vote for it. But they refuse to do so because they think that they have the right to defy the people.
Not quite. The ERG members need to vote for it - there is no requirement for ANY
none Conservative MP to vote for it...
This is a mess of the Tories making and they are currently suffering the consequences of not being united...
the fact they will be punished for the end result is a different matter for the (near) future...
> Mr. Meeks, both sides are very willing for their adversaries to compromise. And it's jolly unfair they haven't.
So far Leavers have shown themselves to be utterly clueless about what Leave entailed. Asking Remainers to sort it out for them is a bit rich.
> > @eek said:
>
> > > @Jonathan said:
>
> > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
>
> > >
>
> > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
>
> >
>
> > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote
>
> >
>
> > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
>
>
>
> 57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
>
> You think that, starting from a minority government, the Tories could win an election with a 12% swing to the LDs? That’s an.... interesting view.
Yes if Labour sees a bigger swing to the LDs and the Tories pick up Labour Leave voters under FPTP of course
It's also the case that people very often overestimate their own symptoms of psychological conditions (and likewise for others). The relentless drive to pathologise every quirk and make every slight eccentricity a condition hasn't helped this.
> > @FF43 said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > @DavidL said:
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > > >
> > > > ===========
> > > >
> > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> > >
> > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
> >
> > =========
> >
> > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
>
> Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
Remainers have compromised. See the Scottish Government's sensible proposals from late 2016. But they were ignored. And so the people involved have shifted their party's stance to obstruct Brexit.
When the losing side offers an olive branch, it's quite the provocation to have it batted aside.
> > @FF43 said:
> > > @DavidL said:
> > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > @DavidL said:
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > > >
> > > > ===========
> > > >
> > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> > >
> > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
> >
> > =========
> >
> > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
>
> Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
> > @Morris_Dancer said:
> > Mr. Meeks, both sides are very willing for their adversaries to compromise. And it's jolly unfair they haven't.
>
> So far Leavers have shown themselves to be utterly clueless about what Leave entailed. Asking Remainers to sort it out for them is a bit rich.
Look on the bright side; there used to be over 17 million of them who apparently were feeling betrayed. Now at least we are down to fewer than 6 million.
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @FF43 said:
> > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > > @DavidL said:
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > > > >
> > > > > ===========
> > > > >
> > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> > > >
> > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
> > >
> > > =========
> > >
> > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
> >
> > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
>
> The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
Why should Remainer MPs implement a deal that Leavers quite clearly detest and allow themselves to form party of Leavers’ next betrayal myth?
> > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > @FF43 said:
> > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > > @DavidL said:
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > > > >
> > > > > ===========
> > > > >
> > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> > > >
> > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
> > >
> > > =========
> > >
> > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
> >
> > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
>
> The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
Once again you are asking for people who don't need to solve the problem to solve the problem for you...
For instance my local MP refused to support May's deal because as a Labour MP she asked her constituents and they said it wasn't good enough. So she went beyond what she was elected to do and still continued to oppose the deal.
> > @not_on_fire said:
> > > @eek said:
> >
> > > > @Jonathan said:
> >
> > > > Hope people heard John Curtice’s astute analysis on R4. Amongst other things he said that the Tories cannot go to the country until Brexit is delivered. But will find it impossible to deliver Brexit in this parliament.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > I believe there is one exception, which is to go to the country immediately to win a mandate for a clear solution.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > But they won't win that election as Nigel will either split the vote by taking the "must leave" vote or were the Tories to placate Nigel the Tories will lose the moderate vote
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Either way without May and the sympathy some had with her (at least this may work) solution there is zero chance of the Conservative party winning any near future election.
> >
> >
> >
> > 57% of 2017 Tories who voted voted Brexit Party on Thursday only 12% voted LD (significantly less than the number of 2017 Labour voters who voted LD) so the Tories could actually win an election on a hard Brexit platform that wins back Brexit Party voters, they cannot win though on a further extension of Article 50 or EUref2 ticket
> >
> > You think that, starting from a minority government, the Tories could win an election with a 12% swing to the LDs? That’s an.... interesting view.
>
> Yes if Labour sees a bigger swing to the LDs and the Tories pick up Labour Leave voters under FPTP of course
Even IF the Tories could unite behind such a platform - and all the evidence suggests otherwise - that depends on Farage humbly standing aside, despite his just achieved success, and giving them a free run. Something tells me that Mr Farage isn't like that.
"She (Diana Glover) was responsible for gathering the signatories for a special meeting of the Party’s National Convention to consider a motion of No Confidence in the Leader. This was to be considered on June 15th. Glover now accepts that there is “no need” for this to take place. But she proposes that the meeting goes ahead with a different item of business:
“Each leadership contender needs to be put under the spotlight of democracy and be questioned by the membership and possibly wider about their policies, vision and route to exiting the EU. This can be happening simultaneously to the MPs voting…We need a leader who believes in post Brexit Britain and its benefits, who will ensure we leave either with a good deal or if the EU will not change their current position be prepared to leave on WTO terms. They must be able to articulate a positive Brexit.”
In other words a hustings. We understand that her request is likely to be agreed."
May be worthwhile considering when considering the likely candidates. While the MPs could stitch things up by sending two through to the party, the above makes it clear the party expects it wishes to be taken into account.
> > @DavidL said:
> > > @AlastairMeeks said:
> > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > @DavidL said:
> > > > > > @FF43 said:
> > > > > > > @DavidL said:
> > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > * No Deal isn't a definitive outcome but it could trigger that crisis.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I agree and that is Hunt's problem. If he says that no deal is not an alternative there is no way that the remainer majority in Parliament will ever vote for a deal. That was another one of May's stupidities.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ===========
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I never realised the No Deal threat was aimed at Remainers, not the EU. Poor way to build a consensus, I think.
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't? Seriously? I am surprised.
> > > >
> > > > =========
> > > >
> > > > I didn't. I guess I was naive. But it does make sense, as a No Deal threat to the EU doesn't. Leavers can say, we don't care if everything gets destroyed. Remainers feel obliged to pass the Deal so Leavers don't have to. It's terrorism, but maybe it works.
> > >
> > > Leavers are not expected to compromise. They are outraged that Remainers so far haven’t either.
> >
> > The deal is a compromise Alastair, and quite a sensible one. But hey, when you are given a clear pathway to stopping Brexit altogether why would remainer MPs who promised to honour the result vote for anything else?
>
> Why should Remainer MPs implement a deal that Leavers quite clearly detest and allow themselves to form party of Leavers’ next betrayal myth?
Because they promised, when elected in 2017, to honour the result of the referendum and this is the least harmful way (from their perspective) of doing so. Who cares what the loons think or say? Their idiocy is not an excuse not to do the right thing. Their behavior is disgraceful.
> > @HYUFD said:
>
> > > @NickPalmer said:
>
> > > We could do with someone who knows a bit about Peterborough giving us a rundown on the position there...?
>
> >
>
> > The Brexit Party won the Peterborough council area easily on Sunday
>
> >
>
> > https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1132772393775185920
>
>
>
>
>
> I think though that someone posted up that there is a fair bit of difference between the district and the Parliamentary constituency. The lattrr has a lot more traditionally Labour areas.
>
> There is also a fair bit of difference between Parliament and a talking shop cum gravy train, ooops, the European Parliament.
>
> Would be funny though in a way if we had yet another MP claiming he wanted Brexit and then persistently voting to Remain because he didn't like the Withdrawal Agreement.
Voting against the withdrawal agreement is not voting remain.
I assume you're merely trolling, but just in case you are genuinely ignorant of that fact, I thought I'd point it out.