Stopping Brexit? Isn’t she an MP for a party with “Democrat” in the name?
Just so I'm clear - the result of the 2016 Referendum has to be honoured irrespective of the consequences? I voted leave but I didn't vote to break up the UK, wreck the economy or destroy the Conservative Party welcome though the last of those would be.
I'm also capable of changing my mind and admitting I made a mistake.
Stopping Brexit? Isn’t she an MP for a party with “Democrat” in the name?
Just so I'm clear - the result of the 2016 Referendum has to be honoured irrespective of the consequences? I voted leave but I didn't vote to break up the UK, wreck the economy or destroy the Conservative Party welcome though the last of those would be.
I'm also capable of changing my mind and admitting I made a mistake.
“I'm also capable of changing my mind and admitting I made a mistake”
This reflects the re-alignment of UK politics that Lord Ashcroft, John Curtice and others have been pointing out in different ways. Slowly but surely we have moved from a bell curve of political views towards a U-shape: I think it started with UKIP, then Labour's £3 entry fee and Corbyn's election, then accelerated under the Brexit referendum. It's not just a UK change - look at the US, Italy, France...
What is really driving it is that economies are changing faster now than ever before - only the securely rich are safe and everyone else is looking for a side who will win for them.
I think we may end up being grateful that we are moving to Labour/Remain + Tories/Leave. If it had been Labour/Leave then there would be no EU state aid rules and supremacy of the EU Courts to stop mass nationalisation without compensation, asset tax/confiscation, etc.
People won’t believe Labour/remain while corbyn and co are in charge
One of the few beneficial side effects of Brexit is that it looks set to leave the Conservative party at best unelectable for a generation. The only choice is the path to irrelevance.
This may be great news for anti Tories but it involves forgetting that the opposition is not being run by Roy Jenkins, Dennis Healey, Yvette Cooper, Alistair Darling, Liam Byrne, Ed Balls or Hilary Benn. It's being controlled and run by fans of the Venezuela regime and Castro. We do need at least one party which is sane and electable. That's a lot of pressure on Jo Swinson and friends.
Then perhaps professed moderate Conservatives should have a long hard think right now about what they should be doing before the ship sinks with them on board.
In your terms, only about (at most) 20% of the Tory party qualify as moderate; out of interest, what would you have them do?
Candidly, my best advice to them is to steel their nerves and man the lifeboats. This is one occasion where women and children first does not apply.
There is no home in the current Conservative party for anyone who is not prepared to scorch the earth to secure Brexit.
The current Conservative party is lead by Theresa May (sozza @Pulpstar ) and they are in the midst of deciding upon a new leader. We shall see who that turns out to be before any rash decisions are made...
I wouldn't bank on it. The chances are the choice of the new leader will be the first of those rash decisions.
Sorry, if Raab is what it takes to stop Johnson, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, come on down.
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it..."
I am not a fan of Boris but Raab has shown nothing except a certain bull headed ignorance and stupidity. It is concerning that he was ever in the Cabinet, let alone a contender for PM. Hopefully he will no longer be after today.
On a different note this weeks economic stats from North American manufacturing to Australian house prices to German economic sentiment to UK bond auctions ** are suggesting imminent recession:
Now things might change for the better but perhaps the candidates might be asked what they would do when the next recession occurs instead of their fantasy tax cuts posturing.
** Looks like the government is flogging 10 year bonds at an average yield of 0.89%.
The US figures in particular look alarming.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
The Commons opposing everything is less than magnificent, but just as an Englishman's vote has the same weight as a Scotsman's in a referendum, so a Scottish MP's vote has equal weight to an English MP's in the Commons. As it should be.
We've abandoned the Dunkirk metaphor for the trenches, now ?
The miserable and pointless destruction of that conflict is, I suppose, more apposite.
LOL. People really need to think about their grandiose metaphors a little more, that’s for sure. We should rush ahead, charge one might say, as one battalion, or brigade, but in a light fashion, as we don’t want to seem too serious. A charge of the light brigade perhaps. Shit.
Sorry, if Raab is what it takes to stop Johnson, Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, come on down.
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it..."
I am not a fan of Boris but Raab has shown nothing except a certain bull headed ignorance and stupidity. It is concerning that he was ever in the Cabinet, let alone a contender for PM. Hopefully he will no longer be after today.
Sorry - I misread your original post (which is mildly ambiguous as to who should come on down), and replied in that vein.
On a different note this weeks economic stats from North American manufacturing to Australian house prices to German economic sentiment to UK bond auctions ** are suggesting imminent recession:
Now things might change for the better but perhaps the candidates might be asked what they would do when the next recession occurs instead of their fantasy tax cuts posturing.
** Looks like the government is flogging 10 year bonds at an average yield of 0.89%.
The US figures in particular look alarming.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
Trump will make sure that the money continues to be pumped and interest rates stay on the floor until after he is safely re-elected. I don't see a significant US slowdown before 2020.
@Charles - The Remain side, following the referendum, took two lines:
1 - To remain in the Single Market and have the Withdrawal Agreement reflect that 2 - To put that Withdrawal Agreement up to referendum for yay/nay
They've been consistently told to F Off on both counts for three years now. I will admit that the first line has faded away over time as the two camps solidify, but it isn't the case that the Remain side failed to present the EFTA/Single Market side as a compromise option. It was where the Peoples Vote campaign started, and it was what was explicitly in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto (both of those lines together).
That's not come across in the public arena.
Who wanted to listen? Not Leavers. They didn't want any compromise from their "pure" Brexit. Not Tory Remainers. They knew that their Party was doomed if it didn't successfully deliver a Brexit that would satisfy the Leavers. Remainers were discouraged, disconsolate, and - quite quickly - not in the mood for compromise. After all, they were told they weren't welcome (yes, I know we've been told May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech was intended differently, but given that "Citizen of the World" is literally what "cosmopolitan" means, it was one hell of a blunder from a professional communicator at the very least; a deliberate dog-whistle at worst (and a dog-whistle that turned out to be actually just a whistle). In addition, May and the Tories made it very very clear that EFTA/Single Market membership was very much excluded by their red lines.
I've spoken to a number of Remainers who were involved in the early attempts, and they just got blanked until they shifted to their harder stance. As shown by your own lack of any memory of it.
My point is constructive. You are seeking to betray the electorate by subverting what they voted for into something completely different.
Your ideal outcome was:
1) ride on the back of the anti-immigration Leavers to victory. 2) stab them in the back by making common cause with the defeated Remainers to get what you really want. 3) let the defeated Remainers get the blame for this betrayal.
And now you wonder why neither your fellow Leavers nor the defeated Remainers cooperate with this.
Whatever way forward is best from this mess, that isn't it.
No, it wasn't. But believe whatever makes you happy.
Until you see the nature of the campaign that you fought for, you will not identify a sensible way forward. The cohort of Leavers who hated the EU viscerally and were prepared to say and do anything to win the referendum have to accept that words and deeds have consequences, and that the next steps of this national disaster have to take those words and deeds into account.
If there were a referendum on whether to put a 100,000 pa ceiling on immigration or not, which side would win?
I agree with you about what this referendum was won and lost on. Some of your fellow Leavers, however, delude themselves.
The referendum was called, and Leave won, because Blair, Brown, Cameron and Clegg refused to listen to the public on immigration. All they had to do was try to keep the numbers down. Cameron pledged to, and they hit record levels. The blame for this mess lies with those four men
I am growing increasingly pessimistic about Afghanistan's chances here.
Cricket? Or real life?
There's a difference?
Yes. England is in a good place, Cricket-wise. Geopolitically it's heading into an iceberg. Conclusion, put Eoin Morgan in charge
I am wrong to give serious thought as to whether I would accept us going back to having a crap cricket team if this bought political/economic stability? Even before the Ashes?
@Charles - The Remain side, following the referendum, took two lines:
1 - To remain in the Single Market and have the Withdrawal Agreement reflect that 2 - To put that Withdrawal Agreement up to referendum for yay/nay
They've been consistently told to F Off on both counts for three years now. I will admit that the first line has faded away over time as the two camps solidify, but it isn't the case that the Remain side failed to present the EFTA/Single Market side as a compromise option. It was where the Peoples Vote campaign started, and it was what was explicitly in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto (both of those lines together).
That's not come across in the public arena.
Who wanted to listen? Not Leavers. They didn't want any compromise from their "pure" Brexit. Not Tory Remainers. They knew that their Party was doomed if it didn't successfully deliver a Brexit that would satisfy the Leavers. Remainers were discouraged, disconsolate, and - quite quickly - not in the mood for compromise. After all, they were told they weren't welcome (yes, I know we've been told May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech was intended differently, but given that "Citizen of the World" is literally what "cosmopolitan" means, it was one hell of a blunder from a professional communicator at the very least; a deliberate dog-whistle at worst (and a dog-whistle that turned out to be actually just a whistle). In addition, May and the Tories made it very very clear that EFTA/Single Market membership was very much excluded by their red lines.
I've spoken to a number of Remainers who were involved in the early attempts, and they just got blanked until they shifted to their harder stance. As shown by your own lack of any memory of it.
Agreed. Charles' account sounds like an attempt (conscious or not) to rewrite history.
@Charles - The Remain side, following the referendum, took two lines:
1 - To remain in the Single Market and have the Withdrawal Agreement reflect that 2 - To put that Withdrawal Agreement up to referendum for yay/nay
They've been consistently told to F Off on both counts for three years now. I will admit that the first line has faded away over time as the two camps solidify, but it isn't the case that the Remain side failed to present the EFTA/Single Market side as a compromise option. It was where the Peoples Vote campaign started, and it was what was explicitly in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto (both of those lines together).
That's not come across in the public arena.
Who wanted to listen? Not Leavers. They didn't want any compromise from their "pure" Brexit. Not Tory Remainers. They knew that their Party was doomed if it didn't successfully deliver a Brexit that would satisfy the Leavers. Remainers were discouraged, disconsolate, and - quite quickly - not in the mood for compromise. After all, they were told they weren't welcome (yes, I know we've been told May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech was intended differently, but given that "Citizen of the World" is literally what "cosmopolitan" means, it was one hell of a blunder from a professional communicator at the very least; a deliberate dog-whistle at worst (and a dog-whistle that turned out to be actually just a whistle). In addition, May and the Tories made it very very clear that EFTA/Single Market membership was very much excluded by their red lines.
I've spoken to a number of Remainers who were involved in the early attempts, and they just got blanked until they shifted to their harder stance. As shown by your own lack of any memory of it.
And, to supplement that, I do recall reading fairly frequently in the months following the referendum, that Single Market membership would be incompatible with Brexit due to Freedom of Movement issues.
On a different note this weeks economic stats from North American manufacturing to Australian house prices to German economic sentiment to UK bond auctions ** are suggesting imminent recession:
Now things might change for the better but perhaps the candidates might be asked what they would do when the next recession occurs instead of their fantasy tax cuts posturing.
** Looks like the government is flogging 10 year bonds at an average yield of 0.89%.
The US figures in particular look alarming.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
Trump will make sure that the money continues to be pumped and interest rates stay on the floor until after he is safely re-elected. I don't see a significant US slowdown before 2020.
Yes, but the trade conflict with China is beginning seriously to screw with world trade.
On a different note this weeks economic stats from North American manufacturing to Australian house prices to German economic sentiment to UK bond auctions ** are suggesting imminent recession:
Now things might change for the better but perhaps the candidates might be asked what they would do when the next recession occurs instead of their fantasy tax cuts posturing.
** Looks like the government is flogging 10 year bonds at an average yield of 0.89%.
The US figures in particular look alarming.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
Trump will make sure that the money continues to be pumped and interest rates stay on the floor until after he is safely re-elected. I don't see a significant US slowdown before 2020.
Yes, but the trade conflict with China is beginning seriously to screw with world trade.
I am pretty sure he will Trumpet (ha!) a deal on that before his re-election, probably during the first half of next year. But it's certainly not helping at the moment.
Mr. Cooke, although migration wasn't a factor for me, it was one of the most prominent aspects of the campaign (along with making our own trade deals), so believing single market membership impermissible for that reasons* is a legitimate perspective.
[For the record, the only red line I had in mind was customs union, which remains demented as an idea without actual EU membership].
@Charles - The Remain side, following the referendum, took two lines:
1 - To remain in the Single Market and have the Withdrawal Agreement reflect that 2 - To put that Withdrawal Agreement up to referendum for yay/nay
They've been consistently told to F Off on both counts for three years now. I will admit that the first line has faded away over time as the two camps solidify, but it isn't the case that the Remain side failed to present the EFTA/Single Market side as a compromise option. It was where the Peoples Vote campaign started, and it was what was explicitly in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto (both of those lines together).
That's not come across in the public arena.
Who wanted to listen? Not Leavers. They didn't want any compromise from their "pure" Brexit. Not Tory Remainers. They knew that their Party was doomed if it didn't successfully deliver a Brexit that would satisfy the Leavers. Remainers were discouraged, disconsolate, and - quite quickly - not in the mood for compromise. After all, they were told they weren't welcome (yes, I know we've been told May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech was intended differently, but given that "Citizen of the World" is literally what "cosmopolitan" means, it was one hell of a blunder from a professional communicator at the very least; a deliberate dog-whistle at worst (and a dog-whistle that turned out to be actually just a whistle). In addition, May and the Tories made it very very clear that EFTA/Single Market membership was very much excluded by their red lines.
I've spoken to a number of Remainers who were involved in the early attempts, and they just got blanked until they shifted to their harder stance. As shown by your own lack of any memory of it.
I rather suspect that the number of people who know that May referenced 'citizens of nowhere' let alone complain about it is approximately sod all.
And before some PBer starts giving anecdotes I'll point out we aren't the typical person.
On a different note this weeks economic stats from North American manufacturing to Australian house prices to German economic sentiment to UK bond auctions ** are suggesting imminent recession:
Now things might change for the better but perhaps the candidates might be asked what they would do when the next recession occurs instead of their fantasy tax cuts posturing.
** Looks like the government is flogging 10 year bonds at an average yield of 0.89%.
The US figures in particular look alarming.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
Trump will make sure that the money continues to be pumped and interest rates stay on the floor until after he is safely re-elected. I don't see a significant US slowdown before 2020.
On a different note this weeks economic stats from North American manufacturing to Australian house prices to German economic sentiment to UK bond auctions ** are suggesting imminent recession:
Now things might change for the better but perhaps the candidates might be asked what they would do when the next recession occurs instead of their fantasy tax cuts posturing.
** Looks like the government is flogging 10 year bonds at an average yield of 0.89%.
The US figures in particular look alarming.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
Trump will make sure that the money continues to be pumped and interest rates stay on the floor until after he is safely re-elected. I don't see a significant US slowdown before 2020.
The longer the delay the worse it could be.
Sure, but never mistake Trump with someone who cares.
On a different note this weeks economic stats from North American manufacturing to Australian house prices to German economic sentiment to UK bond auctions ** are suggesting imminent recession:
Now things might change for the better but perhaps the candidates might be asked what they would do when the next recession occurs instead of their fantasy tax cuts posturing.
** Looks like the government is flogging 10 year bonds at an average yield of 0.89%.
The US figures in particular look alarming.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
Trump will make sure that the money continues to be pumped and interest rates stay on the floor until after he is safely re-elected. I don't see a significant US slowdown before 2020.
Yes, but the trade conflict with China is beginning seriously to screw with world trade.
I am pretty sure he will Trumpet (ha!) a deal on that before his re-election, probably during the first half of next year. But it's certainly not helping at the moment.
I'm not quite so sanguine. This is one of those conflicts where the two sides don't understand each other's motivations or determination. Add to that Trump's imperfect (I'm being generous) understanding of what's at stake, and it could quite easily go pear shaped.
Though your optimism could just as easily prove correct.
My point is constructive. You are seeking to betray the electorate by subverting what they voted for into something completely different.
Your ideal outcome was:
1) ride on the back of the anti-immigration Leavers to victory. 2) stab them in the back by making common cause with the defeated Remainers to get what you really want. 3) let the defeated Remainers get the blame for this betrayal.
And now you wonder why neither your fellow Leavers nor the defeated Remainers cooperate with this.
Whatever way forward is best from this mess, that isn't it.
No, it wasn't. But believe whatever makes you happy.
Until you see the nature of the campaign that you fought for, you will not identify a sensible way forward. The cohort of Leavers who hated the EU viscerally and were prepared to say and do anything to win the referendum have to accept that words and deeds have consequences, and that the next steps of this national disaster have to take those words and deeds into account.
If there were a referendum on whether to put a 100,000 pa ceiling on immigration or not, which side would win?
Are you telling me the Tory Brexiteers have the slightest intention of an immigration cap? They have spoken frequently of immigration *control* but very rarely of an immigration *cap*, and when they have done so they have qualified it (eg "EU immigration")
My point is constructive. You are seeking to betray the electorate by subverting what they voted for into something completely different.
Your ideal outcome was:
1) ride on the back of the anti-immigration Leavers to victory. 2) stab them in the back by making common cause with the defeated Remainers to get what you really want. 3) let the defeated Remainers get the blame for this betrayal.
And now you wonder why neither your fellow Leavers nor the defeated Remainers cooperate with this.
Whatever way forward is best from this mess, that isn't it.
No, it wasn't. But believe whatever makes you happy.
Until you see the nature of the campaign that you fought for, you will not identify a sensible way forward. The cohort of Leavers who hated the EU viscerally and were prepared to say and do anything to win the referendum have to accept that words and deeds have consequences, and that the next steps of this national disaster have to take those words and deeds into account.
If there were a referendum on whether to put a 100,000 pa ceiling on immigration or not, which side would win?
Are you telling me the Tory Brexiteers have the slightest intention of an immigration cap? They have spoken frequently of immigration *control* but very rarely of an immigration *cap*, and when they have done so they have qualified it (eg "EU immigration")
@Charles - The Remain side, following the referendum, took two lines:
1 - To remain in the Single Market and have the Withdrawal Agreement reflect that 2 - To put that Withdrawal Agreement up to referendum for yay/nay
They've been consistently told to F Off on both counts for three years now. I will admit that the first line has faded away over time as the two camps solidify, but it isn't the case that the Remain side failed to present the EFTA/Single Market side as a compromise option. It was where the Peoples Vote campaign started, and it was what was explicitly in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto (both of those lines together).
That's not come across in the public arena.
Who wanted to listen? Not Leavers. They didn't want any compromise from their "pure" Brexit. Not Tory Remainers. They knew that their Party was doomed if it didn't successfully deliver a Brexit that would satisfy the Leavers. Remainers were discouraged, disconsolate, and - quite quickly - not in the mood for compromise. After all, they were told they weren't welcome (yes, I know we've been told May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech was intended differently, but given that "Citizen of the World" is literally what "cosmopolitan" means, it was one hell of a blunder from a professional communicator at the very least; a deliberate dog-whistle at worst (and a dog-whistle that turned out to be actually just a whistle). In addition, May and the Tories made it very very clear that EFTA/Single Market membership was very much excluded by their red lines.
I've spoken to a number of Remainers who were involved in the early attempts, and they just got blanked until they shifted to their harder stance. As shown by your own lack of any memory of it.
And, to supplement that, I do recall reading fairly frequently in the months following the referendum, that Single Market membership would be incompatible with Brexit due to Freedom of Movement issues.
I certainly remember reading that - it struck me as part of an argument, but it was a while later.
Even from the days of Gina Miller's original case in 2016 there was a perception of trying to overturn the result.
On a different note this weeks economic stats from North American manufacturing to Australian house prices to German economic sentiment to UK bond auctions ** are suggesting imminent recession:
Now things might change for the better but perhaps the candidates might be asked what they would do when the next recession occurs instead of their fantasy tax cuts posturing.
** Looks like the government is flogging 10 year bonds at an average yield of 0.89%.
The US figures in particular look alarming.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
Trump will make sure that the money continues to be pumped and interest rates stay on the floor until after he is safely re-elected. I don't see a significant US slowdown before 2020.
The longer the delay the worse it could be.
Sure, but never mistake Trump with someone who cares.
I doubt he's much different to the average politician with their attention span stretching until the next election.
My point is constructive. You are seeking to betray the electorate by subverting what they voted for into something completely different.
Your ideal outcome was:
1) ride on the back of the anti-immigration Leavers to victory. 2) stab them in the back by making common cause with the defeated Remainers to get what you really want. 3) let the defeated Remainers get the blame for this betrayal.
And now you wonder why neither your fellow Leavers nor the defeated Remainers cooperate with this.
Whatever way forward is best from this mess, that isn't it.
No, it wasn't. But believe whatever makes you happy.
Until you see the nature of the campaign that you fought for, you will not identify a sensible way forward. The cohort of Leavers who hated the EU viscerally and were prepared to say and do anything to win the referendum have to accept that words and deeds have consequences, and that the next steps of this national disaster have to take those words and deeds into account.
I voted Leave, and I hosted a party for Business For Britain because Matt Elliott and Dan Hannan asked me to.
I'm not sure that counts as fighting for a campaign!
Mr. Cooke, although migration wasn't a factor for me, it was one of the most prominent aspects of the campaign (along with making our own trade deals), so believing single market membership impermissible for that reasons* is a legitimate perspective.
[For the record, the only red line I had in mind was customs union, which remains demented as an idea without actual EU membership].
Edited extra bit: *reason, even.
Oh, indeed. It was made very clear indeed. It is, however, a bit off for Leavers to lament that Remainers hadn't pushed Single Market membership harder as a compromise.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
One of the great closing lines of a book. Much emulated since. "Meet the new boss. .."
Somewhat worryingly re Boris, they do say that in later life you get the face you deserve. And pigs are notoriously both lazy and greedy. They also lack any semblance of personal integrity.
On a different note this weeks economic stats from North American manufacturing to Australian house prices to German economic sentiment to UK bond auctions ** are suggesting imminent recession:
Now things might change for the better but perhaps the candidates might be asked what they would do when the next recession occurs instead of their fantasy tax cuts posturing.
** Looks like the government is flogging 10 year bonds at an average yield of 0.89%.
The US figures in particular look alarming.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
Trump will make sure that the money continues to be pumped and interest rates stay on the floor until after he is safely re-elected. I don't see a significant US slowdown before 2020.
The longer the delay the worse it could be.
Sure, but never mistake Trump with someone who cares.
I doubt he's much different to the average politician with their attention span stretching until the next election.
He's merely more crude and more blatant.
Hammond has built up the capacity to increase government spending quite sharply whilst keeping borrowing on a declining path. I must have missed all the candidates for the leadership saying thank you whilst they promise ever more largesse in a frankly very untory way.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
One of the great closing lines of a book. Much emulated since. "Meet the new boss. .."
Somewhat worryingly re Boris, they do say that in later life you get the face you deserve. And pigs are notoriously both lazy and greedy. They also lack any semblance of personal integrity.
My point is constructive. You are seeking to betray the electorate by subverting what they voted for into something completely different.
Your ideal outcome was:
1) ride on the back of the anti-immigration Leavers to victory. 2) stab them in the back by making common cause with the defeated Remainers to get what you really want. 3) let the defeated Remainers get the blame for this betrayal.
And now you wonder why neither your fellow Leavers nor the defeated Remainers cooperate with this.
Whatever way forward is best from this mess, that isn't it.
No, it wasn't. But believe whatever makes you happy.
Until you see the nature of the campaign that you fought for, you will not identify a sensible way forward. The cohort of Leavers who hated the EU viscerally and were prepared to say and do anything to win the referendum have to accept that words and deeds have consequences, and that the next steps of this national disaster have to take those words and deeds into account.
I voted Leave, and I hosted a party for Business For Britain because Matt Elliott and Dan Hannan asked me to.
I'm not sure that counts as fighting for a campaign!
Er. Yes it does. Fairly emphatically, in fact.
Nah - BfB was before the referendum.
I didn't pound the streets, canvass anyone, deliver any mail, make any donations, do anything but vote for them.
I'm certainly a "supporter" but don't think I "fought for them".
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
One of the great closing lines of a book. Much emulated since. "Meet the new boss. .."
Somewhat worryingly re Boris, they do say that in later life you get the face you deserve. And pigs are notoriously both lazy and greedy. They also lack any semblance of personal integrity.
Sorry if that sounds harsh.
Orwell really was brilliant. My favourite equivalent is whoever you vote for the government always gets in.
And on pigs they are generally thought to be quite intelligent. You may be on to something.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”
One of the great closing lines of a book. Much emulated since. "Meet the new boss. .."
Somewhat worryingly re Boris, they do say that in later life you get the face you deserve. And pigs are notoriously both lazy and greedy. They also lack any semblance of personal integrity.
Sorry if that sounds harsh.
Pigs are also highly intelligent. I refer you to the quote by General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord….
My point is constructive. You are seeking to betray the electorate by subverting what they voted for into something completely different.
Your ideal outcome was:
1) ride on the back of the anti-immigration Leavers to victory. 2) stab them in the back by making common cause with the defeated Remainers to get what you really want. 3) let the defeated Remainers get the blame for this betrayal.
And now you wonder why neither your fellow Leavers nor the defeated Remainers cooperate with this.
Whatever way forward is best from this mess, that isn't it.
No, it wasn't. But believe whatever makes you happy.
Until you see the nature of the campaign that you fought for, you will not identify a sensible way forward. The cohort of Leavers who hated the EU viscerally and were prepared to say and do anything to win the referendum have to accept that words and deeds have consequences, and that the next steps of this national disaster have to take those words and deeds into account.
I voted Leave, and I hosted a party for Business For Britain because Matt Elliott and Dan Hannan asked me to.
I'm not sure that counts as fighting for a campaign!
Er. Yes it does. Fairly emphatically, in fact.
Nah - BfB was before the referendum.
I didn't pound the streets, canvass anyone, deliver any mail, make any donations, do anything but vote for them.
I'm certainly a "supporter" but don't think I "fought for them".
And I had nothing to do with LeaveEU.
I believe you said you voted leave to teach our leaders that they are not in charge. It worked, albeit not in the way you intended.
My point is constructive. You are seeking to betray the electorate by subverting what they voted for into something completely different.
Your ideal outcome was:
1) ride on the back of the anti-immigration Leavers to victory. 2) stab them in the back by making common cause with the defeated Remainers to get what you really want. 3) let the defeated Remainers get the blame for this betrayal.
And now you wonder why neither your fellow Leavers nor the defeated Remainers cooperate with this.
Whatever way forward is best from this mess, that isn't it.
No, it wasn't. But believe whatever makes you happy.
Until you see the nature of the campaign that you fought for, you will not identify a sensible way forward. The cohort of Leavers who hated the EU viscerally and were prepared to say and do anything to win the referendum have to accept that words and deeds have consequences, and that the next steps of this national disaster have to take those words and deeds into account.
I voted Leave, and I hosted a party for Business For Britain because Matt Elliott and Dan Hannan asked me to.
I'm not sure that counts as fighting for a campaign!
Er. Yes it does. Fairly emphatically, in fact.
Nah - BfB was before the referendum.
I didn't pound the streets, canvass anyone, deliver any mail, make any donations, do anything but vote for them.
I'm certainly a "supporter" but don't think I "fought for them".
And I had nothing to do with LeaveEU.
I believe you said you voted leave to teach our leaders that they are not in charge. It worked, albeit not in the way you intended.
Don't believe so. I do think that they didn't have the right to delegate as much power as they have to Europe without authorisation, so that may be what you are thinking about?
Who wanted to listen? Not Leavers. They didn't want any compromise from their "pure" Brexit. Not Tory Remainers. They knew that their Party was doomed if it didn't successfully deliver a Brexit that would satisfy the Leavers. Remainers were discouraged, disconsolate, and - quite quickly - not in the mood for compromise. After all, they were told they weren't welcome (yes, I know we've been told May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech was intended differently, but given that "Citizen of the World" is literally what "cosmopolitan" means, it was one hell of a blunder from a professional communicator at the very least; a deliberate dog-whistle at worst (and a dog-whistle that turned out to be actually just a whistle). In addition, May and the Tories made it very very clear that EFTA/Single Market membership was very much excluded by their red lines.
I've spoken to a number of Remainers who were involved in the early attempts, and they just got blanked until they shifted to their harder stance. As shown by your own lack of any memory of it.
And, to supplement that, I do recall reading fairly frequently in the months following the referendum, that Single Market membership would be incompatible with Brexit due to Freedom of Movement issues.
I certainly remember reading that - it struck me as part of an argument, but it was a while later.
Even from the days of Gina Miller's original case in 2016 there was a perception of trying to overturn the result.
Oh, that perception has been there since the very start. I think it became a self-fulfilling prophecy, to be honest - many fervent Leavers decided early on that "they" would steal Brexit from them, and it drove their "no compromises" stance. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Don't settle for Brexit in Name Only. Saboteurs. Traitors. We still see the simplistic persecution narrative here - if anything, it's got more strident.
I fully accept there were some on the Remain side who also didn't want the slightest compromise, but they were, at the start, a pronounced minority. Those willing to accept the result ended up driven out of the centre.
Boris has just reached 105 endorsements with both Wikipedia and Guido which means he can't be knocked out unless some of his backers don't support him in private.
Gove is down to 35 public supporters with Wikipedia and 33 with Guido, after Bob Seely went over to Boris.
One way to look at this is to say which opponent, if any, Johnson would like to face in a run-off. Jeremy Hunt would be the favourite. Easy to characterise as May 2.0, who would flip flop on Brexit and not deliver.
Hunt would be the hardest opponent for Boris, partly because he looks more prime ministerial, pace Boris's new suit, but mainly because he is the only candidate where a direct comparison is possible. Who was the better Foreign Secretary?
So I suspect that tales of Boris lending votes to Hunt are intended to mislead.
@Charles - The Remain side, following the referendum, took two lines:
1 - To remain in the Single Market and have the Withdrawal Agreement reflect that 2 - To put that Withdrawal Agreement up to referendum for yay/nay
They've been consistently told to F Off on both counts for three years now. I will admit that the first line has faded away over time as the two camps solidify, but it isn't the case that the Remain side failed to present the EFTA/Single Market side as a compromise option. It was where the Peoples Vote campaign started, and it was what was explicitly in the 2017 Lib Dem manifesto (both of those lines together).
That's not come across in the public arena.
Who wanted to listen? Not Leavers. They didn't want any compromise from their "pure" Brexit. Not Tory Remainers. They knew that their Party was doomed if it didn't successfully deliver a Brexit that would satisfy the Leavers. Remainers were discouraged, disconsolate, and - quite quickly - not in the mood for compromise. After all, they were told they weren't welcome (yes, I know we've been told May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech was intended differently, but given that "Citizen of the World" is literally what "cosmopolitan" means, it was one hell of a blunder from a professional communicator at the very least; a deliberate dog-whistle at worst (and a dog-whistle that turned out to be actually just a whistle). In addition, May and the Tories made it very very clear that EFTA/Single Market membership was very much excluded by their red lines.
I've spoken to a number of Remainers who were involved in the early attempts, and they just got blanked until they shifted to their harder stance. As shown by your own lack of any memory of it.
And, to supplement that, I do recall reading fairly frequently in the months following the referendum, that Single Market membership would be incompatible with Brexit due to Freedom of Movement issues.
Which is why May's Deal was so good. She effectively kept us in the single market for goods and gave us FoM control too.
The issue was the mood music, and her appalling political salesmanship as you describe.
I believe you said you voted leave to teach our leaders that they are not in charge. It worked, albeit not in the way you intended.
Don't believe so. I do think that they didn't have the right to delegate as much power as they have to Europe without authorisation, so that may be what you are thinking about?
I was thinking of your post on the day of the referendum explaining why you voted Leave.
Voting to Leave, was, for me, a way for the people of this country to show the Westminster clique who is in charge. It was a way to force them to be accountable for their actions. It was a way to make them think about what is right for all of the people of this country, not just to focus on the headline numbers and ignore those who get left behind.
We can, and should, be better than that as a party and as a country. The Conservatives used to be the party of the One Nation. They have forgotten how to do that - and I fear they have forgotten what it even means.
To lead is to serve. Our leaders need to be taught that they are not in charge. Vote Leave: take control.
Who wanted to listen? Not Leavers. They didn't want any compromise from their "pure" Brexit. Not Tory Remainers. They knew that their Party was doomed if it didn't successfully deliver a Brexit that would satisfy the Leavers. Remainers were discouraged, disconsolate, and - quite quickly - not in the mood for compromise. After all, they were told they weren't welcome (yes, I know we've been told May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech was intended differently, but given that "Citizen of the World" is literally what "cosmopolitan" means, it was one hell of a blunder from a professional communicator at the very least; a deliberate dog-whistle at worst (and a dog-whistle that turned out to be actually just a whistle). In addition, May and the Tories made it very very clear that EFTA/Single Market membership was very much excluded by their red lines.
I've spoken to a number of Remainers who were involved in the early attempts, and they just got blanked until they shifted to their harder stance. As shown by your own lack of any memory of it.
And, to supplement that, I do recall reading fairly frequently in the months following the referendum, that Single Market membership would be incompatible with Brexit due to Freedom of Movement issues.
I certainly remember reading that - it struck me as part of an argument, but it was a while later.
Even from the days of Gina Miller's original case in 2016 there was a perception of trying to overturn the result.
Oh, that perception has been there since the very start. I think it became a self-fulfilling prophecy, to be honest - many fervent Leavers decided early on that "they" would steal Brexit from them, and it drove their "no compromises" stance. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Don't settle for Brexit in Name Only. Saboteurs. Traitors. We still see the simplistic persecution narrative here - if anything, it's got more strident.
I fully accept there were some on the Remain side who also didn't want the slightest compromise, but they were, at the start, a pronounced minority. Those willing to accept the result ended up driven out of the centre.
I believe you said you voted leave to teach our leaders that they are not in charge. It worked, albeit not in the way you intended.
Don't believe so. I do think that they didn't have the right to delegate as much power as they have to Europe without authorisation, so that may be what you are thinking about?
I was thinking of your post on the day of the referendum explaining why you voted Leave.
Voting to Leave, was, for me, a way for the people of this country to show the Westminster clique who is in charge. It was a way to force them to be accountable for their actions. It was a way to make them think about what is right for all of the people of this country, not just to focus on the headline numbers and ignore those who get left behind.
We can, and should, be better than that as a party and as a country. The Conservatives used to be the party of the One Nation. They have forgotten how to do that - and I fear they have forgotten what it even means.
To lead is to serve. Our leaders need to be taught that they are not in charge. Vote Leave: take control.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
The silver lining to this particular cloud is that a downturn in the US will make it less likely that we get 4 more years of poison emanating from the White House.
OTOH that silver lining comes with a cloud of its own. If the economy goes bad what chance something of a military nature is engineered to fill the airwaves instead?
Boris getting Leadsom and other new backers - gives him more room for manoeuvre - is he going to give a tranche of votes to Hunt to keep Hunt in a strong second?
If so, he must do it now because he can't let his vote total fall in Round 3 or 4 - if so it would be obvious what he was doing and could be very damaging.
If he's got say 25 more votes, he should give Hunt 20 and let his total rise by just 5.
Very hard for Stewart to beat Hunt in final ballot (ie when down to three candidates) if Hunt has a bonus of 20+.
I believe you said you voted leave to teach our leaders that they are not in charge. It worked, albeit not in the way you intended.
Don't believe so. I do think that they didn't have the right to delegate as much power as they have to Europe without authorisation, so that may be what you are thinking about?
I was thinking of your post on the day of the referendum explaining why you voted Leave.
Voting to Leave, was, for me, a way for the people of this country to show the Westminster clique who is in charge. It was a way to force them to be accountable for their actions. It was a way to make them think about what is right for all of the people of this country, not just to focus on the headline numbers and ignore those who get left behind.
We can, and should, be better than that as a party and as a country. The Conservatives used to be the party of the One Nation. They have forgotten how to do that - and I fear they have forgotten what it even means.
To lead is to serve. Our leaders need to be taught that they are not in charge. Vote Leave: take control.
You keep a library of people’s old posts?
I've tried to find that comment myself in a moment of Governmental crisis (after the third MV failed, I think) - it was such an inspiring one!
Comments
There’s always one who tries to be different
Now, is that the pitch Boris is making to the Tory party? Or is that the pitch the Tory party are going to make to the country?
The miserable and pointless destruction of that conflict is, I suppose, more apposite.
(But as you regularly remind me, I have been caught out by indicators before.)
The Commons opposing everything is less than magnificent, but just as an Englishman's vote has the same weight as a Scotsman's in a referendum, so a Scottish MP's vote has equal weight to an English MP's in the Commons. As it should be.
Allegedly.
Boris the pig - it is a spooky and disturbing likeness, but I must try and rid myself of the thought if he is to be our PM.
edit: for shame! beaten by @Theuniondivvie
Almost.
Geopolitically it's heading into an iceberg.
Conclusion, put Eoin Morgan in charge
Not Leavers. They didn't want any compromise from their "pure" Brexit.
Not Tory Remainers. They knew that their Party was doomed if it didn't successfully deliver a Brexit that would satisfy the Leavers.
Remainers were discouraged, disconsolate, and - quite quickly - not in the mood for compromise. After all, they were told they weren't welcome (yes, I know we've been told May's "Citizens of Nowhere" speech was intended differently, but given that "Citizen of the World" is literally what "cosmopolitan" means, it was one hell of a blunder from a professional communicator at the very least; a deliberate dog-whistle at worst (and a dog-whistle that turned out to be actually just a whistle). In addition, May and the Tories made it very very clear that EFTA/Single Market membership was very much excluded by their red lines.
I've spoken to a number of Remainers who were involved in the early attempts, and they just got blanked until they shifted to their harder stance. As shown by your own lack of any memory of it.
Pretty impressive hitting off someone of Archer's pace.
Charles' account sounds like an attempt (conscious or not) to rewrite history.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-48678723
[For the record, the only red line I had in mind was customs union, which remains demented as an idea without actual EU membership].
Edited extra bit: *reason, even.
And before some PBer starts giving anecdotes I'll point out we aren't the typical person.
Max of 3, Likely 1.. ?
This is one of those conflicts where the two sides don't understand each other's motivations or determination. Add to that Trump's imperfect (I'm being generous) understanding of what's at stake, and it could quite easily go pear shaped.
Though your optimism could just as easily prove correct.
Even from the days of Gina Miller's original case in 2016 there was a perception of trying to overturn the result.
He's merely more crude and more blatant.
It is, however, a bit off for Leavers to lament that Remainers hadn't pushed Single Market membership harder as a compromise.
Rory, not so much...
Somewhat worryingly re Boris, they do say that in later life you get the face you deserve. And pigs are notoriously both lazy and greedy. They also lack any semblance of personal integrity.
Sorry if that sounds harsh.
Pigs are intelligent and quite charming animals.
I didn't pound the streets, canvass anyone, deliver any mail, make any donations, do anything but vote for them.
I'm certainly a "supporter" but don't think I "fought for them".
And I had nothing to do with LeaveEU.
And on pigs they are generally thought to be quite intelligent. You may be on to something.
Gove +29
Javid +27
Boris +5
Hunt +1
Raab +1
Stewart -10
I fully accept there were some on the Remain side who also didn't want the slightest compromise, but they were, at the start, a pronounced minority. Those willing to accept the result ended up driven out of the centre.
Gove is down to 35 public supporters with Wikipedia and 33 with Guido, after Bob Seely went over to Boris.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1feCjt98HJcY9tlc5Zx78ZoSOC2fN-j0vRVFD5eUTbUE/edit#gid=0
So I suspect that tales of Boris lending votes to Hunt are intended to mislead.
The issue was the mood music, and her appalling political salesmanship as you describe.
https://politicalbetting.vanillacommunity.com/discussion/comment/1126995/#Comment_1126995
Voting to Leave, was, for me, a way for the people of this country to show the Westminster clique who is in charge. It was a way to force them to be accountable for their actions. It was a way to make them think about what is right for all of the people of this country, not just to focus on the headline numbers and ignore those who get left behind.
We can, and should, be better than that as a party and as a country. The Conservatives used to be the party of the One Nation. They have forgotten how to do that - and I fear they have forgotten what it even means.
To lead is to serve. Our leaders need to be taught that they are not in charge. Vote Leave: take control.
OTOH that silver lining comes with a cloud of its own. If the economy goes bad what chance something of a military nature is engineered to fill the airwaves instead?
If so, he must do it now because he can't let his vote total fall in Round 3 or 4 - if so it would be obvious what he was doing and could be very damaging.
If he's got say 25 more votes, he should give Hunt 20 and let his total rise by just 5.
Very hard for Stewart to beat Hunt in final ballot (ie when down to three candidates) if Hunt has a bonus of 20+.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1140888298107416576
If not it's a fairly narrow book!