The daft thing is, this is what the Change MPs who have gone to the Lib Dems should have done in the first place instead of setting up a new party. They would have had plenty of influence and may well have resulted in a couple more seats for the Lib Dems at the Euro elections. Unless you have a genuinely niche market that is not currently served by the existing parties, starting a new one is really not bright.
Yes. Spot on.
I don't think we've seen the end of the story here yet. I'm expecting Allen and Wollaston, at least, to take the Lib Dem whip at some point before the next election. Umunna will probably end up running some incredibly tedious think-tank.
Is there any evidence at all of Chuka ever having done any thinking?
I can't remember all the Change UK MPs. I can't work out who has left. Umunna, Allen, Woolaston and Berger are the ones I have, but aren't there two more? Resorted to wiki to be reminded of Shuker and Smith.
It sounds like the splitters are still not joining the Lib Dems. Madness. Which is the stronger half?
My guess is that Vince has agreed not to admit them since the next leader should decide. If it's Swinson they will join and if it's Davey they won't be let in.
You would expect politicians whose stock in trade is taking the moral high ground would be better at getting their timing right. 'Bitch Slapped' sounds about right. What was Corbyn thinking about asking for a meeting? A bonobo would have turned him down.
OK. Let's talk about that US-UK trade deal for a moment.
1. It's not about the NHS
2. It's going to be about agriculture.: (a) Simply, the Labour Party isn't going to vote for a trade deal with the mortal enemy (Trump's US), while MPs from rural seats aren't going to vote for allowing food produced under US statndards to compete with that produced under UK ones. (b) Oh yes, and those Conservative MPs from wealthy cities? They're going to hate the fact that (i) GM crops will be allowed and (ii) the UK will be treaty bound to not even force labelling of GM products.
3. Under a crash out Brexit scenario, the US Irish lobby is going be pretty pissed. Rightly or wrongly, we will be blamed. I cannot see the House of Representatives handing Trump or the UK a victory under those circumstances.
4. I can't see the US softening its ISDS requirements - i.e. where there are two US judges for one of ours in dispute resolution. That has led to some seriously unbalanced decisions in NAFTA.
A US-UK trade deal, no matter how desirable, is a chimera. There aren't the votes for it in the UK. There aren't the votes for it in the US.
So, what you’re saying is, that No Deal is better than a Bad Deal?
Got it.
Here's the thing. The swashbuckling Captain Onedin Brexiteers all claim to be very keen on trade deals around the world in the abstract. So keen are they, they're tearing up the biggest and deepest trade deal that Britain has in order to get others. But when it comes to the concrete, they shun the necessary compromises.
Just what is it that Leavers are now trying to achieve?
I’m not that interested in a comprehensive FTA with the USA - I might be interested in micro deals, like liberalising passport control, and other services equivalencies - and I was happy with May’s Deal with the EU. I’d like a closer strategic relationship with India too but that too might not be possible.
Compromises aren’t a problem for me.
Many Indian sources have been quite clear a few times, though, that any trade deals with them would have to bring in immigration, too.
However pragmatic some Brexiters may personally be about such things, including such as the NHS or agriculture, too, the problem for any Prime Minister wanting to make such deals is that Brexit is not a pragmatic movement. It's an emotional, highly demanding one.
The daft thing is, this is what the Change MPs who have gone to the Lib Dems should have done in the first place instead of setting up a new party. They would have had plenty of influence and may well have resulted in a couple more seats for the Lib Dems at the Euro elections. Unless you have a genuinely niche market that is not currently served by the existing parties, starting a new one is really not bright.
Yes. Spot on.
I don't think we've seen the end of the story here yet. I'm expecting Allen and Wollaston, at least, to take the Lib Dem whip at some point before the next election. Umunna will probably end up running some incredibly tedious think-tank.
Is there any evidence at all of Chuka ever having done any thinking?
OK. Let's talk about that US-UK trade deal for a moment.
1. It's not about the NHS
2. It's going to be about agriculture.: (a) Simply, the Labour Party isn't going to vote for a trade deal with the mortal enemy (Trump's US), while MPs from rural seats aren't going to vote for allowing food produced under US statndards to compete with that produced under UK ones. (b) Oh yes, and those Conservative MPs from wealthy cities? They're going to hate the fact that (i) GM crops will be allowed and (ii) the UK will be treaty bound to not even force labelling of GM products.
3. Under a crash out Brexit scenario, the US Irish lobby is going be pretty pissed. Rightly or wrongly, we will be blamed. I cannot see the House of Representatives handing Trump or the UK a victory under those circumstances.
4. I can't see the US softening its ISDS requirements - i.e. where there are two US judges for one of ours in dispute resolution. That has led to some seriously unbalanced decisions in NAFTA.
A US-UK trade deal, no matter how desirable, is a chimera. There aren't the votes for it in the UK. There aren't the votes for it in the US.
So, what you’re saying is, that No Deal is better than a Bad Deal?
Got it.
Here's the thing. The swashbuckling Captain Onedin Brexiteers all claim to be very keen on trade deals around the world in the abstract. So keen are they, they're tearing up the biggest and deepest trade deal that Britain has in order to get others. But when it comes to the concrete, they shun the necessary compromises.
Just what is it that Leavers are now trying to achieve?
I’m not that interested in a comprehensive FTA with the USA - I might be interested in micro deals, like liberalising passport control, and other services equivalencies - and I was happy with May’s Deal with the EU. I’d like a closer strategic relationship with India too but that too might not be possible.
Compromises aren’t a problem for me.
Many Indian sources have been quite clear a few times, though, that any trade deals with them would have to bring in immigration, too.
However pragmatic some Brexiters may personally be about such things, including such as the NHS or agriculture, too, the problem for any Prime Minister wanting to make such deals is that Brexit is not a pragmatic movement. It's an emotional, highly demanding one.
We need to leave the EU (important symbolically), then absolutely lash ourselves to it - CU, SM, just rid of our MEPs - the remainder will probably make better decisions on our behalf than ours would anyway.
OK. Let's talk about that US-UK trade deal for a moment.
1. It's not about the NHS
2. It's going to be about agriculture.: (a) Simply, the Labour Party isn't going to vote for a trade deal with the mortal enemy (Trump's US), while MPs from rural seats aren't going to vote for allowing food produced under US statndards to compete with that produced under UK ones. (b) Oh yes, and those Conservative MPs from wealthy cities? They're going to hate the fact that (i) GM crops will be allowed and (ii) the UK will be treaty bound to not even force labelling of GM products.
3. Under a crash out Brexit scenario, the US Irish lobby is going be pretty pissed. Rightly or wrongly, we will be blamed. I cannot see the House of Representatives handing Trump or the UK a victory under those circumstances.
4. I can't see the US softening its ISDS requirements - i.e. where there are two US judges for one of ours in dispute resolution. That has led to some seriously unbalanced decisions in NAFTA.
A US-UK trade deal, no matter how desirable, is a chimera. There aren't the votes for it in the UK. There aren't the votes for it in the US.
So, what you’re saying is, that No Deal is better than a Bad Deal?
Got it.
I'm actually pretty relaxed about US food standards (living in the US as I do). I also think that allowing cheaper food in from the US would be generally good for people in the UK.
My issue, rather than food standards, would be the US opposition to allowing labeling. In Quebec, Monsanto used NAFTA ISDS tribunals to overturn a law requiring labeling of GM products. To me, this is just wrong. It's one thing to say that US food should be allowed to be sold here alongside UK food (all in favour), but another for the UK parliament to not be allowed to make decisions about labeling GM food. (And wasn't this kind of thing one of the reasons we left the EU? We'd just be changing being cross with Brussels hoisting rules onto us to being cross with Washington doing the same.)
In any case, I don't see how a deal could be done. The opposition in parliament from would be enormous. The Labour Party wouldn't be up for it. Nor would the LibDems or the SNP. So, you'd need every Conservative and the DUP to vote for it. But it would be opposed by rural Tories because it would create an unlevel playing field, and by suburban Tories worried about GM food.
McD seems to really rate her. For all his faults he's no fool and a shrewd operator. So it must be more than just she is the only real hard lefty of her generation.
OK. Let's talk about that US-UK trade deal for a moment.
1. It's not about the NHS
2. It's going to be about agriculture.: (a) Simply, the Labour Party isn't going to vote for a trade deal with the mortal enemy (Trump's US), while MPs from rural seats aren't going to vote for allowing food produced under US statndards to compete with that produced under UK ones. (b) Oh yes, and those Conservative MPs from wealthy cities? They're going to hate the fact that (i) GM crops will be allowed and (ii) the UK will be treaty bound to not even force labelling of GM products.
3. Under a crash out Brexit scenario, the US Irish lobby is going be pretty pissed. Rightly or wrongly, we will be blamed. I cannot see the House of Representatives handing Trump or the UK a victory under those circumstances.
4. I can't see the US softening its ISDS requirements - i.e. where there are two US judges for one of ours in dispute resolution. That has led to some seriously unbalanced decisions in NAFTA.
A US-UK trade deal, no matter how desirable, is a chimera. There aren't the votes for it in the UK. There aren't the votes for it in the US.
So, what you’re saying is, that No Deal is better than a Bad Deal?
Got it.
Here's the thing. The swashbuckling Captain Onedin Brexiteers all claim to be very keen on trade deals around the world in the abstract. So keen are they, they're tearing up the biggest and deepest trade deal that Britain has in order to get others. But when it comes to the concrete, they shun the necessary compromises.
Just what is it that Leavers are now trying to achieve?
Complete rubbish of course from you again. The point of leaving was not to get trade deals, it was to remove ourselves from EU Governance. Not everything in this world revolves around money, in spite of what most Remainers seem to think these days.
There are quite a number of Tory MPs who ought to be Lib Dems unfortunately.
Unfortunate for who?
The Tory majority? Even with DUP support this government is on life support. Two or three more defectors on the back of the leadership contest and the new PM will only be in office long enough to call an election.
A few more than that and the new Conservative leader might not get to be Prime Minister.
Good point. The Tories should think about going for someone normal. Boris guarantees defections
There are quite a number of Tory MPs who ought to be Lib Dems unfortunately.
Unfortunate for who?
The Tory majority? Even with DUP support this government is on life support. Two or three more defectors on the back of the leadership contest and the new PM will only be in office long enough to call an election.
A few more than that and the new Conservative leader might not get to be Prime Minister.
Good point. The Tories should think about going for someone normal. Boris guarantees defections
Greening said she couldn't be in a party led by Boris. Clearly she is expecting him to win and mentally detaching herself already.
This is what happens when you invite the Labour party to these things.
I walked through it earlier today. A lot of Free Palestine badges and Palestinian flags. Because, er.... @TheJezziah help me out here.
I must be feeling particularly contrary today but maybe because his policies are so pro Israel, the acceptance of new settlements on occupied land and the transfer of the embassy to Jerusalem? The Palestinians have a lot more to complain about so far as Trump is concerned than we do. A lot more.
Yes good point. It's great that all those white lefties thought to bring up this of all issues today on their protest.
McD seems to really rate her. For all his faults he's no fool and a shrewd operator. So it must be more than just she is the only real hard lefty of her generation.
Perhaps he believes he can manipulate her for his own ends.
There is more to it than that, though. Certainly Gapes hates the LibDems with a passion - as his twitter feed has long demonstrated. He'd rather take the humiliation of losing his seat as an Independent than have to apply to join the LDs. Although given his age and health he's probably heading for retirement anyway.
Too late . Not one trusts the Tories on the NHS. Perhaps Raab might also now regret his contribution to Brittania Unchanged .
The other parties have a selection of quotes from that ready to go. I’m not sure rampant capitalism and removing workers rights will go down well with most of the public .
Before I scroll back through, how could any of the Chuk-Tiggers become leader of the LDs? They'd have to join the party in days and get the requisite support to be nominated. Even if there is no requirement in being in the party a certain amount of time before becoming leader, and even assuming if, say, 2 defectors join and that is enough MP support for one of them to stand, how do they get the local party backing?
I'm actually pretty relaxed about US food standards (living in the US as I do). I also think that allowing cheaper food in from the US would be generally good for people in the UK.
My issue, rather than food standards, would be the US opposition to allowing labeling. In Quebec, Monsanto used NAFTA ISDS tribunals to overturn a law requiring labeling of GM products. To me, this is just wrong. It's one thing to say that US food should be allowed to be sold here alongside UK food (all in favour), but another for the UK parliament to not be allowed to make decisions about labeling GM food. (And wasn't this kind of thing one of the reasons we left the EU? We'd just be changing being cross with Brussels hoisting rules onto us to being cross with Washington doing the same.)
In any case, I don't see how a deal could be done. The opposition in parliament from would be enormous. The Labour Party wouldn't be up for it. Nor would the LibDems or the SNP. So, you'd need every Conservative and the DUP to vote for it. But it would be opposed by rural Tories because it would create an unlevel playing field, and by suburban Tories worried about GM food.
Looking through the various comparison sites it looks to me like food prices in the US are actually higher than in the UK overall.
I can't see any good reason for pursuing an FTA with the US. We already do a healthy trade with them and I am simply not convinced the additional trade that would result from an FTA would be in our interests compared to the damage that would be caused along the lines you talk about. I see no upside to it for the general public at all. But then the older I get the more I doubt the benefits of the sorts of globalisation that has been pursued by Governments for the last few decades.
There is more to it than that, though. Certainly Gapes hates the LibDems with a passion - as his twitter feed has long demonstrated. He'd rather take the humiliation of losing his seat as an Independent than have to apply to join the LDs. Although given his age and health he's probably heading for retirement anyway.
I'd make Heidi Allen a pretty strong favourite to hold South Cambridgeshire as a Lib Dem.
Sarah Wollaston would be 50/50 in Totnes, IMHO.. She's get lots of support from the inhabitants of Narnia, but the Conservatives would fight back in coastal areas.
There is more to it than that, though. Certainly Gapes hates the LibDems with a passion - as his twitter feed has long demonstrated. He'd rather take the humiliation of losing his seat as an Independent than have to apply to join the LDs. Although given his age and health he's probably heading for retirement anyway.
I'd make Heidi Allen a pretty strong favourite to hold South Cambridgeshire as a Lib Dem.
Sarah Wollaston would be 50/50 in Totnes, IMHO.. She's get lots of support from the inhabitants of Narnia, but the Conservatives would fight back in coastal areas.
In the current environment I'd say both Heidi and Sarah are very strong favourites. Things look a lot better for Chuka as well, after the LibDem surge in London. Even Luciana represents a seat where the LibDems were a very good second, until the coalition.
There is more to it than that, though. Certainly Gapes hates the LibDems with a passion - as his twitter feed has long demonstrated. He'd rather take the humiliation of losing his seat as an Independent than have to apply to join the LDs. Although given his age and health he's probably heading for retirement anyway.
I'd make Heidi Allen a pretty strong favourite to hold South Cambridgeshire as a Lib Dem.
Sarah Wollaston would be 50/50 in Totnes, IMHO.. She's get lots of support from the inhabitants of Narnia, but the Conservatives would fight back in coastal areas.
As far as I could tell the main reason not to join LibDems soon after they left the dying carcasses of their old parties was that LD brand was for the knackers yard too.
What a difference a few weeks makes.
LDs owe the ERG all a big round of drinks frankly.
There is more to it than that, though. Certainly Gapes hates the LibDems with a passion - as his twitter feed has long demonstrated. He'd rather take the humiliation of losing his seat as an Independent than have to apply to join the LDs. Although given his age and health he's probably heading for retirement anyway.
I'd make Heidi Allen a pretty strong favourite to hold South Cambridgeshire as a Lib Dem.
Sarah Wollaston would be 50/50 in Totnes, IMHO.. She's get lots of support from the inhabitants of Narnia, but the Conservatives would fight back in coastal areas.
As far as I could tell the main reason not to join LibDems soon after they left the dying carcasses of their old parties was that LD brand was for the knackers yard too.
What a difference a few weeks makes.
LDs owe the ERG all a big round of drinks frankly.
All Remainers owe the ERG a vote of thanks - we'd have left by now if the were Tory loyalists.
I'm actually pretty relaxed about US food standards (living in the US as I do). I also think that allowing cheaper food in from the US would be generally good for people in the UK.
My issue, rather than food standards, would be the US opposition to allowing labeling. In Quebec, Monsanto used NAFTA ISDS tribunals to overturn a law requiring labeling of GM products. To me, this is just wrong. It's one thing to say that US food should be allowed to be sold here alongside UK food (all in favour), but another for the UK parliament to not be allowed to make decisions about labeling GM food. (And wasn't this kind of thing one of the reasons we left the EU? We'd just be changing being cross with Brussels hoisting rules onto us to being cross with Washington doing the same.)
In any case, I don't see how a deal could be done. The opposition in parliament from would be enormous. The Labour Party wouldn't be up for it. Nor would the LibDems or the SNP. So, you'd need every Conservative and the DUP to vote for it. But it would be opposed by rural Tories because it would create an unlevel playing field, and by suburban Tories worried about GM food.
Looking through the various comparison sites it looks to me like food prices in the US are actually higher than in the UK overall.
I can't see any good reason for pursuing an FTA with the US. We already do a healthy trade with them and I am simply not convinced the additional trade that would result from an FTA would be in our interests compared to the damage that would be caused along the lines you talk about. I see no upside to it for the general public at all. But then the older I get the more I doubt the benefits of the sorts of globalisation that has been pursued by Governments for the last few decades.
When we lived in the US our food bill was certainly higher than it is here. Cheap food in the US is cheap, but it is crap. Look at what happens to the people who eat it.
Vote Farage to help deliver the NHS on a plate to Trump .
Opposition parties need to tie them together and go with that message .
The trouble is that it's the boy who cried wolf.
If Labour hadn't started every campaign in living memory with "10 minutes to save the NHS!" (or close enough to!) then people actually might believe that Trump will privatise it.
As it is, Labour have been saying the same thing for donkey's years and yet here we are, NHS still intact, albeit underfunded.
People would do well to take a leaf out of Elim Garak's book...
Not in the Leavers' worst nightmares would the first tangible consequence of Brexit be about selling the NHS to Donald Trump in return for the privilege of importing chlorinated chicken. But that's what's happened.
I'm actually pretty relaxed about US food standards (living in the US as I do). I also think that allowing cheaper food in from the US would be generally good for people in the UK.
My issue, rather than food standards, would be the US opposition to allowing labeling. In Quebec, Monsanto used NAFTA ISDS tribunals to overturn a law requiring labeling of GM products. To me, this is just wrong. It's one thing to say that US food should be allowed to be sold here alongside UK food (all in favour), but another for the UK parliament to not be allowed to make decisions about labeling GM food. (And wasn't this kind of thing one of the reasons we left the EU? We'd just be changing being cross with Brussels hoisting rules onto us to being cross with Washington doing the same.)
In any case, I don't see how a deal could be done. The opposition in parliament from would be enormous. The Labour Party wouldn't be up for it. Nor would the LibDems or the SNP. So, you'd need every Conservative and the DUP to vote for it. But it would be opposed by rural Tories because it would create an unlevel playing field, and by suburban Tories worried about GM food.
Looking through the various comparison sites it looks to me like food prices in the US are actually higher than in the UK overall.
I can't see any good reason for pursuing an FTA with the US. We already do a healthy trade with them and I am simply not convinced the additional trade that would result from an FTA would be in our interests compared to the damage that would be caused along the lines you talk about. I see no upside to it for the general public at all. But then the older I get the more I doubt the benefits of the sorts of globalisation that has been pursued by Governments for the last few decades.
When we lived in the US our food bill was certainly higher than it is here. Cheap food in the US is cheap, but it is crap. Look at what happens to the people who eat it.
And the quality and range of foods in your average US supermarket is nowhere near as good as in Europe.
I know. Silly fools. He's the only interesting thing about the leadership race. Maybe he can get 3 more to back him.
I suspect there might be some vote sharing to get certain candidates into the race - just as it used to happen to get Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott into Labour races..
Not in the Leavers' worst nightmares would the first tangible consequence of Brexit be about selling the NHS to Donald Trump in return for the privilege of importing chlorinated chicken. But that's what's happened.
No it really isn't. Its another burgeoning Remainer scare story. In the end there is no appetite either in Parliament or in the country for such a deal so it won't happen.
Good propaganda of course but no foundation in reality.
Has Andrea Leadsom got any sort of launch video out or campaign going at all?
As far as I can tell she’s just gone on Marr and LBC radio and done ten tweets.
She's not a serious candidate - just after a cabinet position.
Someone has invested the best part of half a million shoring up her position as third favourite on Betfair.
1: boosting ones odds by betting sums has a long pedigree, dating back to at least Clement Freud in the 70s, who did it on a regular basis. 2: money laundering: if the bookmakers do not have sufficient checks in place, one may laundry large sums of money by trading in and out. Perhaps somebody can advise me if there are safeguards in place to prevent this. 3: somebody might legitimately think she has a chance? It's not impossible. 4: does anybody remember the guy who ramped Romney's odds on Intrade in 2012?
There is more to it than that, though. Certainly Gapes hates the LibDems with a passion - as his twitter feed has long demonstrated. He'd rather take the humiliation of losing his seat as an Independent than have to apply to join the LDs. Although given his age and health he's probably heading for retirement anyway.
I'd make Heidi Allen a pretty strong favourite to hold South Cambridgeshire as a Lib Dem.
Sarah Wollaston would be 50/50 in Totnes, IMHO.. She's get lots of support from the inhabitants of Narnia, but the Conservatives would fight back in coastal areas.
I think Chuka would probably hold his seat as a Lib Dem bearing in mind the results last month. But the Lib Dems have already selected a candidate and started campaigning and no doubt there would be local resistance to dumping her in his favour. But I wonder if he will stick around - an attractive high-profile job outside politics might be his ultimate aim (see also Tristram Hunt).
Has Andrea Leadsom got any sort of launch video out or campaign going at all?
As far as I can tell she’s just gone on Marr and LBC radio and done ten tweets.
She's not a serious candidate - just after a cabinet position.
Someone has invested the best part of half a million shoring up her position as third favourite on Betfair.
1: boosting ones odds by betting sums has a long pedigree, dating back to at least Clement Freud in the 70s, who did it on a regular basis. 2: money laundering: if the bookmakers do not have sufficient checks in place, one may laundry large sums of money by trading in and out. Perhaps somebody can advise me if there are safeguards in place to prevent this. 3: somebody might legitimately think she has a chance? It's not impossible. 4: does anybody remember the guy who ramped Romney's odds on Intrade in 2012?
There are definitely safeguards in place to prevent this.
The Tory contest was amusing, but it now it is just depressing again. Either they are promising things they cannot deliver to get a deal, or they are just pretending such while they intend no deal, or they are no deal, and despite protests there's only so much they could do in a negotiation with the USA and others.
I know. Silly fools. He's the only interesting thing about the leadership race. Maybe he can get 3 more to back him.
I suspect there might be some vote sharing to get certain candidates into the race - just as it used to happen to get Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott into Labour races..
I'm actually pretty relaxed about US food standards (living in the US as I do). I also think that allowing cheaper food in from the US would be generally good for people in the UK.
My issue, rather than food standards, would be the US opposition to allowing labeling. In Quebec, Monsanto used NAFTA ISDS tribunals to overturn a law requiring labeling of GM products. To me, this is just wrong. It's one thing to say that US food should be allowed to be sold here alongside UK food (all in favour), but another for the UK parliament to not be allowed to make decisions about labeling GM food. (And wasn't this kind of thing one of the reasons we left the EU? We'd just be changing being cross with Brussels hoisting rules onto us to being cross with Washington doing the same.)
In any case, I don't see how a deal could be done. The opposition in parliament from would be enormous. The Labour Party wouldn't be up for it. Nor would the LibDems or the SNP. So, you'd need every Conservative and the DUP to vote for it. But it would be opposed by rural Tories because it would create an unlevel playing field, and by suburban Tories worried about GM food.
Looking through the various comparison sites it looks to me like food prices in the US are actually higher than in the UK overall.
I can't see any good reason for pursuing an FTA with the US. We already do a healthy trade with them and I am simply not convinced the additional trade that would result from an FTA would be in our interests compared to the damage that would be caused along the lines you talk about. I see no upside to it for the general public at all. But then the older I get the more I doubt the benefits of the sorts of globalisation that has been pursued by Governments for the last few decades.
When we lived in the US our food bill was certainly higher than it is here. Cheap food in the US is cheap, but it is crap. Look at what happens to the people who eat it.
And the quality and range of foods in your average US supermarket is nowhere near as good as in Europe.
Yes. Our local supermarket had a whole aisle of mayonnaise but all the bread was vile. I am not a food snob at all but I do expect food to taste of something vaguely related to the natural world and to not put me on a fast track to morbid obesity.
Not in the Leavers' worst nightmares would the first tangible consequence of Brexit be about selling the NHS to Donald Trump in return for the privilege of importing chlorinated chicken. But that's what's happened.
The brighter Leavers have been confining their activities to squirrel-watching posts for getting on for a year now; what's left is complaining that the thing they steered the ship of state into, turns out to be the wrong sort of iceberg.
Out of interest, how is the UK getting on with replicating the various EU mini-deals with the US, and what are we still at risk of losing come 31st October?
I know. Silly fools. He's the only interesting thing about the leadership race. Maybe he can get 3 more to back him.
I suspect there might be some vote sharing to get certain candidates into the race - just as it used to happen to get Corbyn/McDonnell/Abbott into Labour races..
Hopefully it doesn't backfire...!
All the loons already have enough support.......
McVey the bigot is thankfully short of the mark.
But I think they need at least one female candidate in the first round of voting...
To be fair to Hunt, did he not make his money unlike Trump?
Yep. Hunt is basically self-made. Trump inherited all his wealth.
It is not so much that Trump inherited his wealth (although he did) but that his father set him up in business. Trump was already rich by the time his father died but in the early days, his father co-signed deals and guaranteed loans. AIUI. There is the famous story of daddy driving to Trump's casino to buy $2 or $3 million in chips to bail it out.
Before I scroll back through, how could any of the Chuk-Tiggers become leader of the LDs? They'd have to join the party in days and get the requisite support to be nominated. Even if there is no requirement in being in the party a certain amount of time before becoming leader, and even assuming if, say, 2 defectors join and that is enough MP support for one of them to stand, how do they get the local party backing?
The thought I had, which might have kicked in if CHUK had folded into the LDs en masse, would have been whether the currently declared candidates would have had to have scrabbled, admittedly not too hard, for a further last minute nominee.
Has Andrea Leadsom got any sort of launch video out or campaign going at all?
As far as I can tell she’s just gone on Marr and LBC radio and done ten tweets.
She's not a serious candidate - just after a cabinet position.
Someone has invested the best part of half a million shoring up her position as third favourite on Betfair.
1: boosting ones odds by betting sums has a long pedigree, dating back to at least Clement Freud in the 70s, who did it on a regular basis. 2: money laundering: if the bookmakers do not have sufficient checks in place, one may laundry large sums of money by trading in and out. Perhaps somebody can advise me if there are safeguards in place to prevent this. 3: somebody might legitimately think she has a chance? It's not impossible. 4: does anybody remember the guy who ramped Romney's odds on Intrade in 2012?
Agree with #3 especially. The simplest answer is that there is someone both rich and a big believer in Leadsom. We all know people who can't separate what they want to happen and what they think will happen, people with millions and millions aren't immune to the problem.
Comments
[runs away...
However pragmatic some Brexiters may personally be about such things, including such as the NHS or agriculture, too, the problem for any Prime Minister wanting to make such deals is that Brexit is not a pragmatic movement. It's an emotional, highly demanding one.
https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1135898837757898758
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1135937154432032768
My issue, rather than food standards, would be the US opposition to allowing labeling. In Quebec, Monsanto used NAFTA ISDS tribunals to overturn a law requiring labeling of GM products. To me, this is just wrong. It's one thing to say that US food should be allowed to be sold here alongside UK food (all in favour), but another for the UK parliament to not be allowed to make decisions about labeling GM food. (And wasn't this kind of thing one of the reasons we left the EU? We'd just be changing being cross with Brussels hoisting rules onto us to being cross with Washington doing the same.)
In any case, I don't see how a deal could be done. The opposition in parliament from would be enormous. The Labour Party wouldn't be up for it. Nor would the LibDems or the SNP. So, you'd need every Conservative and the DUP to vote for it. But it would be opposed by rural Tories because it would create an unlevel playing field, and by suburban Tories worried about GM food.
I have just unsubscibed. I wonder how many more will do the same as they become irrelevant
WRONG!!
Tie-dye t-shirt and big BLIAR banner draped around me and a ceremonial nose stud for the occasion.
The other parties have a selection of quotes from that ready to go. I’m not sure rampant capitalism and removing workers rights will go down well with most of the public .
☺
I can't see any good reason for pursuing an FTA with the US. We already do a healthy trade with them and I am simply not convinced the additional trade that would result from an FTA would be in our interests compared to the damage that would be caused along the lines you talk about. I see no upside to it for the general public at all. But then the older I get the more I doubt the benefits of the sorts of globalisation that has been pursued by Governments for the last few decades.
Sarah Wollaston would be 50/50 in Totnes, IMHO.. She's get lots of support from the inhabitants of Narnia, but the Conservatives would fight back in coastal areas.
What a difference a few weeks makes.
LDs owe the ERG all a big round of drinks frankly.
Opposition parties need to tie them together and go with that message .
If Labour hadn't started every campaign in living memory with "10 minutes to save the NHS!" (or close enough to!) then people actually might believe that Trump will privatise it.
As it is, Labour have been saying the same thing for donkey's years and yet here we are, NHS still intact, albeit underfunded.
People would do well to take a leaf out of Elim Garak's book...
Only for appearances, he'll have his own 'sources'.
https://twentytwowords.com/this-is-what-happens-when-more-people-asked-the-wrong-guy-for-photoshop-help/
Hopefully it doesn't backfire...!
Good propaganda of course but no foundation in reality.
2: money laundering: if the bookmakers do not have sufficient checks in place, one may laundry large sums of money by trading in and out. Perhaps somebody can advise me if there are safeguards in place to prevent this.
3: somebody might legitimately think she has a chance? It's not impossible.
4: does anybody remember the guy who ramped Romney's odds on Intrade in 2012?
Yep. Hunt is basically self-made. Trump inherited all his wealth.
But I think they need at least one female candidate in the first round of voting...
So perhaps AL can find the numbers from somewhere
Small Change UK.
https://twitter.com/WhichUK/status/1135931090642841600