The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
So much easier to dismiss those you disagree with than to engage with their concerns.
If you cannot see that Brexit is an ideological big idea, you are blind. It has exposed the weaknesses of our politics, driven your party mad and it had damaged the country for years to come. And above all it will do nothing to lessen the impact of globalisation.
Populist politicians (of the right or the left) did not create the abandoned regions where poverty is rife and people have no future.
Farage & Corbyn took advantage of this phenomenon, but they did not make it.
That is the triumph of middle-of-the-road politicians (of the right or the left). Obviously, if the middle-of-the-roaders had been so successful, then the Labour and Tory Parties could never have been take over by the extremes !!
As long as the Blairites and Cameroonies refuse to acknowledge their responsibility, then the disaffected are not coming back. The people who suffered at their hands are not going to be satisfied by a return to the status quo.
That is why most laughed at the ridiculous TIGgers, even while pb.com held its collective breath in awe.
Putin may or may not have been right to say Liberalism is dead. But, Liberalism has had no empathy for its victims. That is why we are where we are.
Can you give us an example of a "populist"government that went on to eliminate "abandoned regions where poverty is rife and people have no future"?
What are anticipating that Brexit will do for these abandoned regions?
Populist politicians simply exploit these issues to grab power for themselves.
Populist politicians (of the right or the left) did not create the abandoned regions where poverty is rife and people have no future.
Farage & Corbyn took advantage of this phenomenon, but they did not make it.
That is the triumph of middle-of-the-road politicians (of the right or the left). Obviously, if the middle-of-the-roaders had been so successful, then the Labour and Tory Parties could never have been take over by the extremes !!
As long as the Blairites and Cameroonies refuse to acknowledge their responsibility, then the disaffected are not coming back. The people who suffered at their hands are not going to be satisfied by a return to the status quo.
That is why most laughed at the ridiculous TIGgers, even while pb.com held its collective breath in awe.
Putin may or may not have been right to say Liberalism is dead. But, Liberalism has had no empathy for its victims. That is why we are where we are.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
So much easier to dismiss those you disagree with than to engage with their concerns.
If you cannot see that Brexit is an ideological big idea, you are blind. It has exposed the weaknesses of our politics, driven your party mad and it had damaged the country for years to come. And above all it will do nothing to lessen the impact of globalisation.
Brexit is not the big idea. Provincial English nationalism, of which Brexit is a manifestation, is the big idea. For further details, read the seminal tract: “Two World Wars and One World Cup.”
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the ed this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of villages and market towns now where Labour are all but invisible too.
Johnson's tax cuts aimed at those in the £50k to £80k income bracket will benefit many head teachers, police inspectors, businesspeople, solicitors in the provinces etc they are not aimed at the rich. To be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you need to earn £160k a year, if he wanted to do that he would have cut the 45p top income tax rate for those earning over £150k back to 40p.
Boris' tax cuts may also boost growth and tax revenues, in turn enabling him to fund his spending commitments
Can you believe Boris' promises, though. Are these paper A or B?
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
So you are suggesting that moderate Tories unhappy with the current train wreck sit on their hands for a few decades ? Absurd.
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
Mr. Sandpit, interesting, as I think Verstappen has a good chance.
The Red Bull 'party mode' is inferior to Ferrari/Mercedes so relatively the Red Bull will be faster in the race, but he's already competitive even in qualifying, and starts 2nd.
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
I would expect his cabinet to be very London centric, with policies that favour the London elite (true elite not youngsters renting who happen to have a degree), yet somehow trying to pitch themselves as a party of the shires. Good luck with that.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
So much easier to dismiss those you disagree with than to engage with their concerns.
If you cannot see that Brexit is an ideological big idea, you are blind. It has exposed the weaknesses of our politics, driven your party mad and it had damaged the country for years to come. And above all it will do nothing to lessen the impact of globalisation.
Brexit is not the big idea. Provincial English nationalism, of which Brexit is a manifestation, is the big idea. For further details, read the seminal tract: “Two World Wars and One World Cup.”
First they attack Europe, now they’re attacking London. Where will it end? They just don’t want to live in the real world.
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
I would expect his cabinet to be very London centric, with policies that favour the London elite (true elite not youngsters renting who happen to have a degree), yet somehow trying to pitch themselves as a party of the shires. Good luck with that.
If Boris delivers Brexit he will by definition be delivering the key policy most favoured by the shires at the moment and most opposed by the London elite
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Very well. Let’s break up the UK so they can have their independence.
I don’t think that’s going to happen. But if our Celtic brothers and sisters want to go their own way then good luck to them.
Small town England wants to go its own way according to you. Reframing it betrays a certain condescension towards the rest of the UK.
I don’t think I said that. They are reversing an extended drift that they don’t like.
As far as I am aware, these are the first two constituency markets to be listed (both Shadsy). Unusually late, considering that the next GE can’t be far off.
F1: well, qualifying was frustrating. Given the result, I think there was a 70% chance, roughly, of my bet having been green (probably minor rather than major) had the Fates not decided to urinate in the teacup of tipping.
Anyway. I'll peruse the markets.
This is the first race in ages where several different drivers could win. Although obviously not Vettel. I think it’s between Leclerc and the Mercs, the silvers cars starting on a different strategy having qualified on the mediums. The high temperatures might mean those starting on the softs need two stops, or need to run a long stint on the slow hard tyres at a track where overtaking is easy. I might back a Mercedes 1-2 if the odds are 10 or more.
Though it’s just as possible that Leclerc, if he can stay in for the at the start, will manage his tyres much more easily than those behind, open a decent gap, and be quick enough on his new mediums to stay well ahead of those attempting the overcut. Being in the lead also offers significant cooling advantages, which might be important.
And Vettel has two sets of new softs, which could offer him some spicy options.
As you say, for once it could be an interesting race.
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
Lots of voters work in financial services, in the Home Counties as well as London and indeed in some of the big cities elsewhere in the UK like Edinburgh
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Very well. Let’s break up the UK so they can have their independence.
I don’t think that’s going to happen. But if our Celtic brothers and sisters want to go their own way then good luck to them.
Small town England wants to go its own way according to you. Reframing it betrays a certain condescension towards the rest of the UK.
I don’t think I said that. They are reversing an extended drift that they don’t like.
But by making us all poorer will make their situation worse.
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
The comment that said it all was his declaration last week that "no deal" Brexit was a million to one shot.
Despite his leadership platform to all intents and purposes being to exit with no deal on 31st October.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
And my point is that they are different. One is a policy disagreement and one is a moral weakness. Policy disagreements can and will be ridden out. It’s far harder to do that with moral disagreements without absorbing a taint.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
I would expect his cabinet to be very London centric, with policies that favour the London elite (true elite not youngsters renting who happen to have a degree), yet somehow trying to pitch themselves as a party of the shires. Good luck with that.
If Boris delivers Brexit he will by definition be delivering the key policy most favoured by the shires at the moment and most opposed by the London elite
But will they be so pleased with it once experienced ?
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
Boris wants to deliver a FTA for GB and ignore diehard Remainers whinging
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
So much easier to dismiss those you disagree with than to engage with their concerns.
If you cannot see that Brexit is an ideological big idea, you are blind. It has exposed the weaknesses of our politics, driven your party mad and it had damaged the country for years to come. And above all it will do nothing to lessen the impact of globalisation.
Some politicians see it as a big idea.
I believe the voters saw it as a shout of “Enough!”
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
Boris wants to deliver a FTA for GB and ignore diehard Remainers whinging
He has no idea how to get what he wants and he is making promises he cannot keep.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
And my point is that they are different. One is a policy disagreement and one is a moral weakness. Policy disagreements can and will be ridden out. It’s far harder to do that with moral disagreements without absorbing a taint.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
So, strident blood and soil nationalism and visceral hatred of friends and neighbours is not a moral weakness?
This is an excellent piece. However, it could just be that things are very, very slowly beginning to shift inside the Labour party. I do not believe the majority of Labour members or MPs are anti-Semites. They have, though, to their utter and complete shame, accommodated those who are. But my sense is that the Williamson abomination and the Brexit fiasco have woken up a lot of people. For the first time, it’s possible to imagine Labour not being led by Corbyn. And if he goes, so too do a lot of those around him (the SWP brigade) - even if he is replaced by another far-left leader (which I doubt, unless McDonnell stands). With their èxit, the instinctive anti-Westernism - which is Corbyn Labour’s real electoral problem - goes too.
Overall, we have passed peak-Corbyn and peak-Momentum. In a few years they will be a huge stain on Labour’s history, but nothing more. Labour will remain further to the left than it was under Blair and Brown, but it will be a softer, more mainstream left.
Given all that, I expect the vast majority of undoubtedly morally compromised Labour MPs to stay - and for the Tories to win most seats, but not a majority, at the next GE if Johnson calls a snap poll.
It looks different for the Tories. The party has clearly turned right and become a lot more English nationalist. That’s been a bottom-up process, not a top down one, so is much less about who the leader is. When No Deal exposes all of the Brexiteer claims about Global Britain for the delusions they are, will the current membership accept that and tack back to the pragmàtic centre? I am not so sure.
How much is the acceptance of anti-semitism in the Labour Party a function of bending over backwards not to offend muslim groups?
I left the party not long after Corbyn took over and one of the concerns that led to that was an increasing tendency not to criticise muslims when their views ran counter to what I believed the party stood for. Years were spent winning rights for women' and the LGBT community and then we suddenly find the party saying nothing in the face of mysoginist and homophobic attitudes amongst their muslim client group.
I would expect the party to tackle these issues regardless of which section of the community they came from. Whilst there is the whole geo-political issues surrounding Israel I still see the spread of anti-semitism in the party as stemming from the same reluctance to confront unacceptable attitudes in the muslim community.
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
It hasn't worked that way with Trump and it won't for Johnson.
As far as I am aware, these are the first two constituency markets to be listed (both Shadsy). Unusually late, considering that the next GE can’t be far off.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
So you are suggesting that moderate Tories unhappy with the current train wreck sit on their hands for a few decades ? Absurd.
I think it will play out quickly. The comment at the bottom was just a historical aside
While words are easy and actual achievements are hard, can you imagine if one day Trump was awarded the Nobel peace prize, and deserved it? So many people would go crazy if that happened.
Kissinger & Le Duc, the EU, Begin & Arafat, Aung San Suu Kyi, Obama (while he was waging war) ....
Trump is good addition to the list of deplorable.
To be sure, but in the short term people act like winning it affords someone a halo and reconciling that with Trump would be hard.
And really given Obama's was nominated barely into his presidency before he even had an opportunity to earn it, Itd be amusing to see if Trump, arsehole that he is, actually had a concrete achievement.
Bringing in North Korea from the cold would certainly count as that achievement.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
And my point is that they are different. One is a policy disagreement and one is a moral weakness. Policy disagreements can and will be ridden out. It’s far harder to do that with moral disagreements without absorbing a taint.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
The referendum was won by frightening voters into believing that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. Since then Leavers have sought to label those who don’t agree with them as quislings, traitors and saboteurs. It’s the politics of deceit and division.
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
Boris wants to deliver a FTA for GB and ignore diehard Remainers whinging
He has no idea how to get what he wants and he is making promises he cannot keep.
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
Boris wants to deliver a FTA for GB and ignore diehard Remainers whinging
He has no idea how to get what he wants and he is making promises he cannot keep.
He’s got the polls on his side, anything is possible, so say.......
As far as I am aware, these are the first two constituency markets to be listed (both Shadsy). Unusually late, considering that the next GE can’t be far off.
I think it's really easy to say that politicians at odds with their party should leave it, but under FPTP it is not that simple. Defeat outside the party is not only likely, it is almost inevitable.
Consider what would have happened to the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs if they had left Labour over the Iraq War. At best one or two of them will have clung on for an election cycle or two. Some of the others would have split the non-Tory vote, allowing Conservatives to win otherwise fairly safe Labour seats, damning them in the eyes of the people they needed to win over. Eventually they would have sunk without a trace.
What happened instead? They stuck to their principles on the backbenches. Their time came. Now they sit on the Opposition front bench. Government beckons.
Consider also Blair. He did not stand to be elected by the Alliance in 1983. He wrote to Foot professing his adherence to Marxism. He became one of the longest-serving Prime Ministers of the 20th Century. We didn't hear much about Marxism then.
Labour opponents of anti-semitism and Tory opponents of anti-Europeanism have to coolly consider what action is most likely to succeed. If they leave their parties it must be because they believe they have a better chance of replacing their party from without then of reclaiming the party from within. Or they have given up.
As far as I am aware, these are the first two constituency markets to be listed (both Shadsy). Unusually late, considering that the next GE can’t be far off.
- Islington: you can do better buying Ladbroke bonds in the market. Fundamentally that’s the (credit) risk you are taking
- Uxbridge: isn’t this a proxy - is voters liking for the PM being their MP more important than Brexit opposition or vice versa? Potentially value based on your view of thst
"Hard" brexiteers opposed the customs union element of the backstop because it limited the UK's ability to conduct an independent trade policy. Hard brexiteers believe that harming the UK economy is a price worth paying to deliver Brexit.
So why is an independent trade policy so important to them, if their position isn't motivated by the benefit to the UK economy...?
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the ed this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of villages and market towns now where Labour are all but invisible too.
Johnson's tax cuts aimed at those in the £50k to £80k income bracket will benefit many head teachers, police inspectors, businesspeople, solicitors in the provinces etc they are not aimed at the rich. To be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you need to earn £160k a year, if he wanted to do that he would have cut the 45p top income tax rate for those earning over £150k back to 40p.
Boris' tax cuts may also boost growth and tax revenues, in turn enabling him to fund his spending commitments
Can you believe Boris' promises, though. Are these paper A or B?
iirc he has already rowed back on the tax cuts for £50K-80K.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Very well. Let’s break up the UK so they can have their independence.
I don’t think that’s going to happen. But if our Celtic brothers and sisters want to go their own way then good luck to them.
Small town England wants to go its own way according to you. Reframing it betrays a certain condescension towards the rest of the UK.
I don’t think I said that. They are reversing an extended drift that they don’t like.
But by making us all poorer will make their situation worse.
You’re focusing on economics. That’s a mistake - this is a gut call not driven by numbers.
It’s the economy, not the government that is focusing attention and resources in big cities. And Brexit makes those forces stronger.
Certainly the growth areas of the economy are going to be in the knowledge economy in University cities. From the economic point of view, what can Brexit offer the people of Stoke, Scunthorpe or Port Talbot?
However, it is not economics that is driving Brexit voting. If it were, Remain would have won a landslide. It is in the domain of culture that the referendum was lost, and that is the root of populist politics worldwide, whether Brexit, Trump or Erdogan.
While populists aspire to national unity behind their charismatic leader, they actually are very divisive of their own people. They have a very narrow view of that people and their core values. In reality Populism is the politics of envy, whether coming from left or right.
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the ed this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible.
There are a lot of villages and market towns now where Labour are all but invisible too.
Johnson's tax cuts aimed at those in the £50k to £80k income bracket will benefit many head teachers, police inspectors, businesspeople, solicitors in the provinces etc they are not aimed at the rich. To be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you need to earn £160k a year, if he wanted to do that he would have cut the 45p top income tax rate for those earning over £150k back to 40p.
Boris' tax cuts may also boost growth and tax revenues, in turn enabling him to fund his spending commitments
His quote on Ridge this morning was “there is money available, believe me”. Any idea where this money is right now?
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
The comment that said it all was his declaration last week that "no deal" Brexit was a million to one shot.
Despite his leadership platform to all intents and purposes being to exit with no deal on 31st October.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
So much easier to dismiss those you disagree with than to engage with their concerns.
If you cannot see that Brexit is an ideological big idea, you are blind. It has exposed the weaknesses of our politics, driven your party mad and it had damaged the country for years to come. And above all it will do nothing to lessen the impact of globalisation.
Some politicians see it as a big idea.
I believe the voters saw it as a shout of “Enough!”
Enough bankers, liberal metropolitan values, foreigners telling us what to do.
Instead, more anger, a smaller cake for everyone, more cuts, greater centralisation, fewer opportunities for the next generation. Decline.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Very well. Let’s break up the UK so they can have their independence.
I don’t think that’s going to happen. But if our Celtic brothers and sisters want to go their own way then good luck to them.
Small town England wants to go its own way according to you. Reframing it betrays a certain condescension towards the rest of the UK.
I don’t think I said that. They are reversing an extended drift that they don’t like.
But by making us all poorer will make their situation worse.
You’re focusing on economics. That’s a mistake - this is a gut call not driven by numbers.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
And my point is that they are different. One is a policy disagreement and one is a moral weakness. Policy disagreements can and will be ridden out. It’s far harder to do that with moral disagreements without absorbing a taint.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
So, strident blood and soil nationalism and visceral hatred of friends and neighbours is not a moral weakness?
Shame on you.
I don’t believe that Brexit voters saw it as “blood and soil nationalism”. The Tory Party certainly doesn’t.
But it’s mildly amusing that a Scot. Nat makes that observation.
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
But in any event it’s actions not words that matter
There is also a subtle distinction here which has been evident for some time. Say "business" and the first thing most Conservative MPs think of is "financial services". There are lots of Tory MPs with City experience, not so many who have been in the management of major industrial or retail businesses - and that was true even when I was in Parliament 9 years ago. Because I'd worked in pharmaceutical management, I was approached by the industry to chair the all-party pharma group, not because I was an obvious choice but because there weren't actually many MPs who had worked in the sector at all.
I think that's a pity. Obviously finance is important, but so is business more widely, and it needs MPs on both sides familiar with the issues. Many business leaders will actually find John McDonnell a more intelligent interlocutor on their issues than the average Tory MP, and that can't seem quite natural.
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
It hasn't worked that way with Trump and it won't for Johnson.
Trump is working within a completely different system that shields him despite the large majority of Americans opposing him. The dynamics are different in the UK.
As far as I am aware, these are the first two constituency markets to be listed (both Shadsy). Unusually late, considering that the next GE can’t be far off.
- Islington: you can do better buying Ladbroke bonds in the market. Fundamentally that’s the (credit) risk you are taking
- Uxbridge: isn’t this a proxy - is voters liking for the PM being their MP more important than Brexit opposition or vice versa? Potentially value based on your view of thst
Halfway serious question, what's the yield on Ladbrokes bonds
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
So much easier to dismiss those you disagree with than to engage with their concerns.
If you cannot see that Brexit is an ideological big idea, you are blind. It has exposed the weaknesses of our politics, driven your party mad and it had damaged the country for years to come. And above all it will do nothing to lessen the impact of globalisation.
Brexit is not the “Big Idea”. European integration under the EU (with the people having no say in the matter) is the big idea, and what we are seeing now is the fallout from its rejection.
I find it bemusing that so many Remainers like Mr Meeks are mock shocked and horrified at Julie Hartley-Brewer's comments. When these same people have for years been intoning that Brexit is a risk to the union.
If we put unionism first then Brexit might not be a good idea. If we put Brexit first then the union might not be saved.
No reason why some people's preferences can't and shouldn't be Brexit first.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
And my point is that they are different. One is a policy disagreement and one is a moral weakness. Policy disagreements can and will be ridden out. It’s far harder to do that with moral disagreements without absorbing a taint.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
The referendum was won by frightening voters into believing that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. Since then Leavers have sought to label those who don’t agree with them as quislings, traitors and saboteurs. It’s the politics of deceit and division.
Brexit is a moral weakness too.
We know your views on this. I disagree. There is little point in rerunning the argument.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
And my point is that they are different. One is a policy disagreement and one is a moral weakness. Policy disagreements can and will be ridden out. It’s far harder to do that with moral disagreements without absorbing a taint.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
The referendum was won by frightening voters into believing that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. Since then Leavers have sought to label those who don’t agree with them as quislings, traitors and saboteurs. It’s the politics of deceit and division.
Brexit is a moral weakness too.
Good morning Alastair.
Time to review your magnum opus of three years ago ?
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the ed this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of villages and market towns now where Labour are all but invisible too.
Johnson's tax cuts aimed at those in the £50k to £80k income bracket will benefit many head teachers, police inspectors, businesspeople, solicitors in the provinces etc they are not aimed at the rich. To be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you need to earn £160k a year, if he wanted to do that he would have cut the 45p top income tax rate for those earning over £150k back to 40p.
Boris' tax cuts may also boost growth and tax revenues, in turn enabling him to fund his spending commitments
Can you believe Boris' promises, though. Are these paper A or B?
iirc he has already rowed back on the tax cuts for £50K-80K.
HYUFD knows what Johnson's policies as leader will be, even if Johnson doesn't.
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
Don't ask difficult questions. It'll all be wrapped up in a couple of months.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
So you are suggesting that moderate Tories unhappy with the current train wreck sit on their hands for a few decades ? Absurd.
I think it will play out quickly. The comment at the bottom was just a historical aside
If Brexit is as bad as they think, they are just as likely to lose their seats as to be ‘well positioned to lead the party’ - which is in any event a pretty doubtful assertion.
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
Boris wants to deliver a FTA for GB and ignore diehard Remainers whinging
He has no idea how to get what he wants and he is making promises he cannot keep.
He does, he will remove the temporary Customs Union for GB from the Withdrawal Agreement which May asked for and Barnier did not require and he will let Northern Ireland voters decide on the backstop by referendum if need be
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
Don't ask difficult questions. It'll all be wrapped up in a couple of months.
No doubt Boris will have this all done and dusted by Halloween though.
I find it bemusing that so many Remainers like Mr Meeks are mock shocked and horrified at Julie Hartley-Brewer's comments. When these same people have for years been intoning that Brexit is a risk to the union.
If we put unionism first then Brexit might not be a good idea. If we put Brexit first then the union might not be saved.
No reason why some people's preferences can't and shouldn't be Brexit first.
Absolutely right. The English nationalism JHB represents is what underpins Brexit and now controls the former Conservative and Unionist party. Some of us - including Alastair - have been saying this for a while.
The other perceptive insight is the sense of euphoria the tory members must be feeling as they lurch right and tool up for the culture war. For decades the members, who are mainly old, white, fucked-in-the-head men, have seen their opinions on multi-multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ issues, feminism and whether the Rover 800 is a good car swept away by waves of progressive liberalism. Now they are free to dismiss such notions as the deliria of the woke.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
So much easier to dismiss those you disagree with than to engage with their concerns.
If you cannot see that Brexit is an ideological big idea, you are blind. It has exposed the weaknesses of our politics, driven your party mad and it had damaged the country for years to come. And above all it will do nothing to lessen the impact of globalisation.
Brexit is not the “Big Idea”. European integration under the EU (with the people having no say in the matter) is the big idea, and what we are seeing now is the fallout from its rejection.
Brexit represents a powerful new political force, an ideological rose tinted view of the past. Brexit makes Britain great again by taking back control.
It’s a huge political idea, stronger than progressive or conservative politics.
I find it bemusing that so many Remainers like Mr Meeks are mock shocked and horrified at Julie Hartley-Brewer's comments. When these same people have for years been intoning that Brexit is a risk to the union.
If we put unionism first then Brexit might not be a good idea. If we put Brexit first then the union might not be saved.
No reason why some people's preferences can't and shouldn't be Brexit first.
No reason why you can't also have both, even in Scotland the Brexit Party were second in the European Parliament elections and in Wales the Brexit Party were first just like in England
I find it bemusing that so many Remainers like Mr Meeks are mock shocked and horrified at Julie Hartley-Brewer's comments. When these same people have for years been intoning that Brexit is a risk to the union.
If we put unionism first then Brexit might not be a good idea. If we put Brexit first then the union might not be saved.
No reason why some people's preferences can't and shouldn't be Brexit first.
One newspaper reported this morning that Johnson is considering changing his official title to "First Lord of the treasury and Minister for the Union".
I think it's really easy to say that politicians at odds with their party should leave it, but under FPTP it is not that simple. Defeat outside the party is not only likely, it is almost inevitable.
Consider what would have happened to the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs if they had left Labour over the Iraq War. At best one or two of them will have clung on for an election cycle or two. Some of the others would have split the non-Tory vote, allowing Conservatives to win otherwise fairly safe Labour seats, damning them in the eyes of the people they needed to win over. Eventually they would have sunk without a trace.
What happened instead? They stuck to their principles on the backbenches. Their time came. Now they sit on the Opposition front bench. Government beckons.
Consider also Blair. He did not stand to be elected by the Alliance in 1983. He wrote to Foot professing his adherence to Marxism. He became one of the longest-serving Prime Ministers of the 20th Century. We didn't hear much about Marxism then.
Labour opponents of anti-semitism and Tory opponents of anti-Europeanism have to coolly consider what action is most likely to succeed. If they leave their parties it must be because they believe they have a better chance of replacing their party from without then of reclaiming the party from within. Or they have given up.
He only served two and a half years of the twentieth century (okay - that is probably the most pedantic thing I have every typed...)
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
Boris wants to deliver a FTA for GB and ignore diehard Remainers whinging
Boris wants to save the Conservative party from disaster. There’s a huge number of Conservative members and voters who passionately believe the way forward out of Britain’s decline in this world has to be a break from the EU. They will go to Farage’s Thatcherite Party if the next Conservative leaders another Remainer or the government doesn’t deliver Brexit. Perhaps go for ever. If I am right in my view here, then gosh there is a lot at stake for the Conservative party from a strangely low key election.
And even more at stake than that if the only way 2016 was won was by convincing working class voters leaving EU would address their concerns on immigration, deindustrialization, housing, and funding of the NhS and reverse hospital closure, when actually it won’t at all, the best deal to tackle those things is the current deal, and not making government and households poorer.
I agree with some of what you say (I disagree with much more). But you studiously duck the point.
Put yourself in the shoes of a Conservative MP who sincerely believes no deal Brexit would be disastrous. I understand you disagree, but that’s not the point. What do you think they should do just now, given their views and given that Boris Johnson has made it abundantly clear to secure Brexit on whatever terms by whatever means, including the abrogation of Parliamentary democracy, by 31 October?
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
And my point is that they are different. One is a policy disagreement and one is a moral weakness. Policy disagreements can and will be ridden out. It’s far harder to do that with moral disagreements without absorbing a taint.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
The referendum was won by frightening voters into believing that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. Since then Leavers have sought to label those who don’t agree with them as quislings, traitors and saboteurs. It’s the politics of deceit and division.
Brexit is a moral weakness too.
We know your views on this. I disagree. There is little point in rerunning the argument.
You are comfortable with whipping up untrue fears of mass immigration to indulge your visceral hatred of the EU. It’s unsurprising we disagree.
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
But in any event it’s actions not words that matter
There is also a subtle distinction here which has been evident for some time. Say "business" and the first thing most Conservative MPs think of is "financial services". There are lots of Tory MPs with City experience, not so many who have been in the management of major industrial or retail businesses - and that was true even when I was in Parliament 9 years ago. Because I'd worked in pharmaceutical management, I was approached by the industry to chair the all-party pharma group, not because I was an obvious choice but because there weren't actually many MPs who had worked in the sector at all.
I think that's a pity. Obviously finance is important, but so is business more widely, and it needs MPs on both sides familiar with the issues. Many business leaders will actually find John McDonnell a more intelligent interlocutor on their issues than the average Tory MP, and that can't seem quite natural.
I agree. I’d also say that even when they get outside of financial service most MPs (and certainly government) reflects the views of the multinationals when they should prioritise the SMEs
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the ed this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of big cities outside London where the Tories are all but invisible.
There are a lot of villages and market towns now where Labour are all but invisible too.
Johnson's tax cuts aimed at those in the £50k to £80k income bracket will benefit many head teachers, police inspectors, businesspeople, solicitors in the provinces etc they are not aimed at the rich. To be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you need to earn £160k a year, if he wanted to do that he would have cut the 45p top income tax rate for those earning over £150k back to 40p.
Boris' tax cuts may also boost growth and tax revenues, in turn enabling him to fund his spending commitments
His quote on Ridge this morning was “there is money available, believe me”. Any idea where this money is right now?
It has been vaguely illuminating to see the split opening up between the two leading 'Brexiteers' on this site - PT and HYUFD. Me thinks that even PT is getting a bit exasperated by the rubbish that HYUFD is producing on how a Johnson leadership will play out.
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the ed this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of villages and market towns now where Labour are all but invisible too.
Johnson's tax cuts aimed at those in the £50k to £80k income bracket will benefit many head teachers, police inspectors, businesspeople, solicitors in the provinces etc they are not aimed at the rich. To be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you need to earn £160k a year, if he wanted to do that he would have cut the 45p top income tax rate for those earning over £150k back to 40p.
Boris' tax cuts may also boost growth and tax revenues, in turn enabling him to fund his spending commitments
Can you believe Boris' promises, though. Are these paper A or B?
iirc he has already rowed back on the tax cuts for £50K-80K.
HYUFD knows what Johnson's policies as leader will be, even if Johnson doesn't.
As far as I am aware, these are the first two constituency markets to be listed (both Shadsy). Unusually late, considering that the next GE can’t be far off.
- Islington: you can do better buying Ladbroke bonds in the market. Fundamentally that’s the (credit) risk you are taking
- Uxbridge: isn’t this a proxy - is voters liking for the PM being their MP more important than Brexit opposition or vice versa? Potentially value based on your view of thst
Halfway serious question, what's the yield on Ladbrokes bonds
Shade under 5% (5.125% coupon available at 105). Effectively if the election is in 2 years you match the return but get no premium for illiquidity or the risk that Corbyn loses Islington somehow.
There’s a bit more upside for an early election and less for a 2022 vote.
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
It will be at least a Canada style FTA, maybe more
Those suffering from any sleep disorder might wish to tune into Sky News "All Out Politics" tomorrow morning as Jo Swinson and Ed Davey battle it out to find any difference that might disturb a cigarette paper.
I'm finding it quite soporific alrea ..d ...y... ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
It will be at least a Canada style FTA, maybe more
It has been vaguely illuminating to see the split opening up between the two leading 'Brexiteers' on this site - PT and HYUFD. Me thinks that even PT is getting a bit exasperated by the rubbish that HYUFD is producing on how a Johnson leadership will play out.
I voted Remain, so can hardly be described as a 'leading Brexiteer', certainly compared to Gin or Philip Thompson or Viceroy of Orange or KJohnW etc.
I also disagree with Philip Thompson on a lot of things, he is an English nationalist in some respects and a libertarian, I am neither.
However I also respect democracy and back the FTA for GB Boris does and most Leave voters want
For the conservatives the situation is quite different. Fundamentally a great part of the success of the party and the reason why it has survived as long as it has is that it has an ability to position itself on the side of the masses at critical moment.
I forget who first made the observation, but the reason why the U.K. has had comparatively few revolutions in recent history is because the elites manage to persuade a sufficient proportion of the protesters to join them.
I think what we are living through is one of those historic shifts in positioning. @AlastairMeeks understandably has a worldview that is driven by the interests of the great conurbations, principally London. Moreover for the ed this connection.
Fundamentally, since the late 90s the country has been run by London for London. The balance has not been maintained and what we are seeing is a reversion to mean (I don’t know enough about Scotland, but I suspect part of the SNP’s support comes from the same underlying pressure).
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
If they succeed, then they will revert to their inclusive roots and the mood will shift. If they fail to deliver then a “merger” between BXP and the Tories is the likely outcome. Even with this, however, I don’t think they will become fundamentally an “English nationalist” party as you argue.
There are a lot of villages and market towns now where Labour are all but invisible too.
Johnson's tax cuts aimed at those in the £50k to £80k income bracket will benefit many head teachers, police inspectors, businesspeople, solicitors in the provinces etc they are not aimed at the rich. To be in the top 1% of earners in the UK you need to earn £160k a year, if he wanted to do that he would have cut the 45p top income tax rate for those earning over £150k back to 40p.
Boris' tax cuts may also boost growth and tax revenues, in turn enabling him to fund his spending commitments
Can you believe Boris' promises, though. Are these paper A or B?
iirc he has already rowed back on the tax cuts for £50K-80K.
HYUFD knows what Johnson's policies as leader will be, even if Johnson doesn't.
Boris has not abandoned that tax cut policy
If you're such an expert on his policies, tell me more about his FTA policy. What sectors will be included? What won't? Which service markets will we be able to access?
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
It will be at least a Canada style FTA, maybe more
Just to move the debate on, would you be able to summarise what you mean by a "Canada style FTA" for us, in a couple of paragraphs? And what does the "more" of "maybemore" consist of? ta.
Both sides during the campaign said, rightly, leaving meant leaving the customs union. There was much talk of striking trade deals, which can only occur outside the customs union.
I also said, many times, that I was open to a wide range of leaving deals, perhaps even including single market membership, but that membership of the customs union was the only red line I'd personally hold.
It's demented. We'd be better off staying in the EU than 'leaving' and letting them dictate our trade policy.
So after brexit what is next? Obviously a war on red tape which limits rich people from getting richer by imposing standards. An excuse for dramatically lower personal and corporation tax in the name of stimulating the bank accounts of rich people probably ...and then what?
Your own prejudices are showing through
I’d expect a cut in DfID’s budget (although this can be funded through eliminating the c £1.5bn contribution to the E.U. international development aid, but who cares about double counting)
Probably increased defence spending, reform of business rates (to help small businesses), support for farmers, transport infrastructure investment that sort of thing.
Small town England is instinctively suspicious of “big ideas”
Like Brexit?
The “big idea” was ever closer union.
Small town England said “no thanks”
Nope, the big idea was Farage’s nationalism and associated nostalgic drivel. Brexit is the ultimate ideological crusade.
So much easier to dismiss those you disagree with than to engage with their concerns.
If you cannot see that Brexit is an ideological big idea, you are blind. It has exposed the weaknesses of our politics, driven your party mad and it had damaged the country for years to come. And above all it will do nothing to lessen the impact of globalisation.
Brexit is not the “Big Idea”. European integration under the EU (with the people having no say in the matter) is the big idea, and what we are seeing now is the fallout from its rejection.
Brexit represents a powerful new political force, an ideological rose tinted view of the past. Brexit makes Britain great again by taking back control.
It’s a huge political idea, stronger than progressive or conservative politics.
I’d describe it as the rubber band snapping back. It’s not a fully enumerated ideological position.
The Conservatives are positioning themselves in the side of the non-London group. That gives them a route to survival. Once Brexit is resolved (by which I mean the act of leaving not the ongoing discussions) then they can rebuild from their new position.
But in any event it’s actions not words that matter
There is also a subtle distinction here which has been evident for some time. Say "business" and the first thing most Conservative MPs think of is "financial services". There are lots of Tory MPs with City experience, not so many who have been in the management of major industrial or retail businesses - and that was true even when I was in Parliament 9 years ago. Because I'd worked in pharmaceutical management, I was approached by the industry to chair the all-party pharma group, not because I was an obvious choice but because there weren't actually many MPs who had worked in the sector at all.
I think that's a pity. Obviously finance is important, but so is business more widely, and it needs MPs on both sides familiar with the issues. Many business leaders will actually find John McDonnell a more intelligent interlocutor on their issues than the average Tory MP, and that can't seem quite natural.
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
It hasn't worked that way with Trump and it won't for Johnson.
Trump is working within a completely different system that shields him despite the large majority of Americans opposing him. The dynamics are different in the UK.
I don't think that they are. Johnson's back-story supports me too, from Darius Guppy, the zip wire, through the garden bridge to Carrie-gate. The chaotic personal life, the profligate Mayor, the dangerously incompetent Foreign Secretary.
Any one of these issues should sink a career, but Johnson gets a free pass. 'Boris will be Boris'!
I think it's really easy to say that politicians at odds with their party should leave it, but under FPTP it is not that simple. Defeat outside the party is not only likely, it is almost inevitable.
Consider what would have happened to the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs if they had left Labour over the Iraq War. At best one or two of them will have clung on for an election cycle or two. Some of the others would have split the non-Tory vote, allowing Conservatives to win otherwise fairly safe Labour seats, damning them in the eyes of the people they needed to win over. Eventually they would have sunk without a trace.
What happened instead? They stuck to their principles on the backbenches. Their time came. Now they sit on the Opposition front bench. Government beckons.
Consider also Blair. He did not stand to be elected by the Alliance in 1983. He wrote to Foot professing his adherence to Marxism. He became one of the longest-serving Prime Ministers of the 20th Century. We didn't hear much about Marxism then.
Labour opponents of anti-semitism and Tory opponents of anti-Europeanism have to coolly consider what action is most likely to succeed. If they leave their parties it must be because they believe they have a better chance of replacing their party from without then of reclaiming the party from within. Or they have given up.
He only served two and a half years of the twentieth century (okay - that is probably the most pedantic thing I have every typed...)
To be really pedantic, he actually served as PM for the last three and a half years of the twentieth century.
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
It will be at least a Canada style FTA, maybe more
Just to move the debate on, would you be able to summarise what you mean by a "Canada style FTA" for us, in a couple of paragraphs? ta.
I think we have reached the tipping point for Hunt. The day he can go no further forward. We have seen this moment so often before in two horse races. The moment he is so far behind the only way to bridge the gap is to start sounding like his opponent and copy his policy’s, and, by sounding less original himself, his momentum stalls.
We should now regard Boris a clear winner and turn our attention to his platform and cabinet that will help him deliver it.
I don’t have a view on what they should do. What they will do is sit on their hands.
Then you have written a lot of words to say absolutely nothing on topic.
One of the joys of this site.
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
And my point is that they are different. One is a policy disagreement and one is a moral weakness. Policy disagreements can and will be ridden out. It’s far harder to do that with moral disagreements without absorbing a taint.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
The referendum was won by frightening voters into believing that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. Since then Leavers have sought to label those who don’t agree with them as quislings, traitors and saboteurs. It’s the politics of deceit and division.
Brexit is a moral weakness too.
We know your views on this. I disagree. There is little point in rerunning the argument.
You are comfortable with whipping up untrue fears of mass immigration to indulge your visceral hatred of the EU. It’s unsurprising we disagree.
No, I’m not.
But if it gives you a warm glow of moral smugness to believe that then go ahead. I care little what you think of me.
It has been vaguely illuminating to see the split opening up between the two leading 'Brexiteers' on this site - PT and HYUFD. Me thinks that even PT is getting a bit exasperated by the rubbish that HYUFD is producing on how a Johnson leadership will play out.
Getting? I've been exasperated for years. I don't agree with HYUFD very often.
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
It will be at least a Canada style FTA, maybe more
How long will it take to negotiate?
Less than Canada took as we already have arrangements with the EU anyway
I find it bemusing that so many Remainers like Mr Meeks are mock shocked and horrified at Julie Hartley-Brewer's comments. When these same people have for years been intoning that Brexit is a risk to the union.
If we put unionism first then Brexit might not be a good idea. If we put Brexit first then the union might not be saved.
No reason why some people's preferences can't and shouldn't be Brexit first.
One newspaper reported this morning that Johnson is considering changing his official title to "First Lord of the treasury and Minister for the Union".
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
It will be at least a Canada style FTA, maybe more
Just to move the debate on, would you be able to summarise what you mean by a "Canada style FTA" for us, in a couple of paragraphs? And what does the "more" of "maybemore" consist of? ta.
Out of the EU, out of the Single Market and Customs Union, able to control our own borders and make our own trade deals and no more annual financial contributions to the EU but with largely tariff free trade in goods with the EU and ideally enhanced access for services too
My fundamental point is that you have misdiagnosed the situation, so I don’t accept the premise of your argument.
They will bitch and moan but not do anything effective. When Brexit happens it will either be not as bad as they think (in which case they will reintegrate into the party) or it is (in which case they or their successors* will be well positioned to lead the party)
* this process can take a while. It was about 30 years before the Tory party successfully repositioned themselves after the Peelite/Ultra split.
My argument is simply that there are two groups, one in each main party, who are appalled by those in control and who now have a choice to make.
I appreciate that you are relaxed about the coalition of strident English nationalism and visceral hatred of the EU that is now in charge of your party. But why should those who think it is catastrophic stay around to be abused by the death cult?
And my point is that they are different. One is a policy disagreement and one is a moral weakness. Policy disagreements can and will be ridden out. It’s far harder to do that with moral disagreements without absorbing a taint.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
The referendum was won by frightening voters into believing that millions of Muslims were poised to descend on Britain. Since then Leavers have sought to label those who don’t agree with them as quislings, traitors and saboteurs. It’s the politics of deceit and division.
Brexit is a moral weakness too.
We know your views on this. I disagree. There is little point in rerunning the argument.
You are comfortable with whipping up untrue fears of mass immigration to indulge your visceral hatred of the EU. It’s unsurprising we disagree.
No, I’m not.
But if it gives you a warm glow of moral smugness to believe that then go ahead. I care little what you think of me.
You have never disavowed any aspect of how Leavers have conducted yourself. You have no suggestions for how the lies and divisions that Leavers foment should be remedied. You appear to view them as unfortunate necessities.
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
It will be at least a Canada style FTA, maybe more
How long will it take to negotiate?
Less than Canada took as we already have arrangements with the EU anyway
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
Boris wants to deliver a FTA for GB and ignore diehard Remainers whinging
He has no idea how to get what he wants and he is making promises he cannot keep.
He does, he will remove the temporary Customs Union for GB from the Withdrawal Agreement which May asked for and Barnier did not require and he will let Northern Ireland voters decide on the backstop by referendum if need be
And the DUP will agree to the border in the Irish Sea?
On the basis of that Ridge interview Johnson has no meaningful strategy beyond unicorns and when it all goes pear-shaped he will take no responsibility whatsoever. A complete charlatan who will soon be deservedly exposed for the fraud he is.
It hasn't worked that way with Trump and it won't for Johnson.
Trump is working within a completely different system that shields him despite the large majority of Americans opposing him. The dynamics are different in the UK.
I don't think that they are. Johnson's back-story supports me too, from Darius Guppy, the zip wire, through the garden bridge to Carrie-gate. The chaotic personal life, the profligate Mayor, the dangerously incompetent Foreign Secretary.
Any one of these issues should sink a career, but Johnson gets a free pass. 'Boris will be Boris'!
This is the first time he has come under sustained and critical scrutiny. Trump can win despite being hugely unpopular. I doubt Johnson can because the UK system is very different. And Johnson is entirely dependent on Farage, so cannot pivot.
I find it bemusing that so many Remainers like Mr Meeks are mock shocked and horrified at Julie Hartley-Brewer's comments. When these same people have for years been intoning that Brexit is a risk to the union.
If we put unionism first then Brexit might not be a good idea. If we put Brexit first then the union might not be saved.
No reason why some people's preferences can't and shouldn't be Brexit first.
Absolutely right. The English nationalism JHB represents is what underpins Brexit and now controls the former Conservative and Unionist party. Some of us - including Alastair - have been saying this for a while.
No harm in that either.
Its like if we were talking about taxes and the right of the Tories were saying we need to cut taxes, then the left retorts that if you cut taxes you may have to cut spending, repeat ad nauseum and then JHB says "if you're not prepared to cut spending you're not serious about wanting to cut taxes". Then the left reacts with bigger horror that some on the right actually are OK with cutting spending.
Comments
Can you give us an example of a "populist"government that went on to eliminate "abandoned regions where poverty is rife and people have no future"?
What are anticipating that Brexit will do for these abandoned regions?
Populist politicians simply exploit these issues to grab power for themselves.
Are these paper A or B?
Absurd.
The Red Bull 'party mode' is inferior to Ferrari/Mercedes so relatively the Red Bull will be faster in the race, but he's already competitive even in qualifying, and starts 2nd.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48814944
But in any event it’s actions not words that matter
Islington North LAB MAJ (Jeremy Corbyn) 33,215
Lab 1/10
LD 6/1
Bxp 50/1
Con 50/1
(Baxter: Lab 46%, LD 26%, Bxp 10%, Grn 9%, Con 8%)
Uxbridge and South Ruislip CON MAJ (Boris Johnson) 5,034
Con 1/5
Lab 5/1
Bxp 10/1
LD 50/1
(Baxter: Con 27%, Lab 26%, Bxp 21%, LD 15%, Grn 8%)
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/area_lond.html
And Vettel has two sets of new softs, which could offer him some spicy options.
As you say, for once it could be an interesting race.
Despite his leadership platform to all intents and purposes being to exit with no deal on 31st October.
In any event you may say they shouldn’t stick around. I think they will stick around. And they will be right to do so.
I believe the voters saw it as a shout of “Enough!”
Shame on you.
I left the party not long after Corbyn took over and one of the concerns that led to that was an increasing tendency not to criticise muslims when their views ran counter to what I believed the party stood for. Years were spent winning rights for women' and the LGBT community and then we suddenly find the party saying nothing in the face of mysoginist and homophobic attitudes amongst their muslim client group.
I would expect the party to tackle these issues regardless of which section of the community they came from. Whilst there is the whole geo-political issues surrounding Israel I still see the spread of anti-semitism in the party as stemming from the same reluctance to confront unacceptable attitudes in the muslim community.
Brexit is a moral weakness too.
Large quantities of popcorn are being stockpiled.
Not remotely interested in any of those prices.
Consider what would have happened to the Socialist Campaign Group of MPs if they had left Labour over the Iraq War. At best one or two of them will have clung on for an election cycle or two. Some of the others would have split the non-Tory vote, allowing Conservatives to win otherwise fairly safe Labour seats, damning them in the eyes of the people they needed to win over. Eventually they would have sunk without a trace.
What happened instead? They stuck to their principles on the backbenches. Their time came. Now they sit on the Opposition front bench. Government beckons.
Consider also Blair. He did not stand to be elected by the Alliance in 1983. He wrote to Foot professing his adherence to Marxism. He became one of the longest-serving Prime Ministers of the 20th Century. We didn't hear much about Marxism then.
Labour opponents of anti-semitism and Tory opponents of anti-Europeanism have to coolly consider what action is most likely to succeed. If they leave their parties it must be because they believe they have a better chance of replacing their party from without then of reclaiming the party from within. Or they have given up.
- Islington: you can do better buying Ladbroke bonds in the market. Fundamentally that’s the (credit) risk you are taking
- Uxbridge: isn’t this a proxy - is voters liking for the PM being their MP more important than Brexit opposition or vice versa? Potentially value based on your view of thst
So why is an independent trade policy so important to them, if their position isn't motivated by the benefit to the UK economy...?
However, it is not economics that is driving Brexit voting. If it were, Remain would have won a landslide. It is in the domain of culture that the referendum was lost, and that is the root of populist politics worldwide, whether Brexit, Trump or Erdogan.
While populists aspire to national unity behind their charismatic leader, they actually are very divisive of their own people. They have a very narrow view of that people and their core values. In reality Populism is the politics of envy, whether coming from left or right.
(TM Terry Pratchet)
Instead, more anger, a smaller cake for everyone, more cuts, greater centralisation, fewer opportunities for the next generation. Decline.
But it’s mildly amusing that a Scot. Nat makes that observation.
I think that's a pity. Obviously finance is important, but so is business more widely, and it needs MPs on both sides familiar with the issues. Many business leaders will actually find John McDonnell a more intelligent interlocutor on their issues than the average Tory MP, and that can't seem quite natural.
If we put unionism first then Brexit might not be a good idea.
If we put Brexit first then the union might not be saved.
No reason why some people's preferences can't and shouldn't be Brexit first.
Time to review your magnum opus of three years ago ?
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/29/alistair-meeks-on-the-political-and-economic-crises-of-breathtaking-proportions/
Very much a case of plus ca change etc to my eyes.
Free trade agreements can achieve significant liberalisation in services trade…
A free trade agreement (FTA) offers scope for liberalisation in services. The EU-South Korea FTA, for instance, covering over 100 services sectors, has been described as one of the EU’s most ambitious FTAs in terms of sectoral coverage. However, the scope and extent of market access commitments varies between different FTAs and even comprehensive agreements may fall short on some sectors: the proposed trade deal between the EU and Canada does not cover audio-visual, air transport and financial services.
Similarly, concluding a set of ‘Swiss-style’ bilateral agreements with the EU offers the potential for greater access to the EU services market, but this option is not comprehensive. Switzerland’s bilateral agreements cover only some sectors, such as some types of insurance and public procurement, while excluding important sectors such as financial services. Swiss firms therefore need to set up subsidiary operations in an EU member state in order to be able to access the EU services market in those sectors.
So what format will Boris's FTA take? What sectors will be included and what wont? Who will lose out?
God help anyone who travels.
Let the jokes begin...
It’s a huge political idea, stronger than progressive or conservative politics.
And even more at stake than that if the only way 2016 was won was by convincing working class voters leaving EU would address their concerns on immigration, deindustrialization, housing, and funding of the NhS and reverse hospital closure, when actually it won’t at all, the best deal to tackle those things is the current deal, and not making government and households poorer.
There’s a bit more upside for an early election and less for a 2022 vote.
Those suffering from any sleep disorder might wish to tune into Sky News "All Out Politics" tomorrow morning as Jo Swinson and Ed Davey battle it out to find any difference that might disturb a cigarette paper.
I'm finding it quite soporific alrea ..d ...y... ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I also disagree with Philip Thompson on a lot of things, he is an English nationalist in some respects and a libertarian, I am neither.
However I also respect democracy and back the FTA for GB Boris does and most Leave voters want
Both sides during the campaign said, rightly, leaving meant leaving the customs union. There was much talk of striking trade deals, which can only occur outside the customs union.
I also said, many times, that I was open to a wide range of leaving deals, perhaps even including single market membership, but that membership of the customs union was the only red line I'd personally hold.
It's demented. We'd be better off staying in the EU than 'leaving' and letting them dictate our trade policy.
Any one of these issues should sink a career, but Johnson gets a free pass. 'Boris will be Boris'!
We should now regard Boris a clear winner and turn our attention to his platform and cabinet that will help him deliver it.
But if it gives you a warm glow of moral smugness to believe that then go ahead. I care little what you think of me.
Surely that was Minister of the Unicorn
But apparently Brexit isn’t a moral failing.
Its like if we were talking about taxes and the right of the Tories were saying we need to cut taxes, then the left retorts that if you cut taxes you may have to cut spending, repeat ad nauseum and then JHB says "if you're not prepared to cut spending you're not serious about wanting to cut taxes". Then the left reacts with bigger horror that some on the right actually are OK with cutting spending.