But to be absolutely clear, the leaks had nothing to do with Brexit.
“A ‘shocking’ letter written by the ‘impartial’ US ambassador.... expressing what has been said by many in Washington and the U.K...”
As somebody pointed out, this ‘“story” reads like it’s been edited by about 6 different people.
He's got a long, long way for someone starting out apparently so unsupported. Either he's very bright, and lucky or........
Yes, it is striking that a 19 year-old freelance with only a few months’ experience had so many “trusted sources” senior in the civil service, ready to drop their schedule to go out to lunch with him.
I don't blame May for Brexit turning out to be the mess I confidently expected it to be. Who, realistically, of the present lot would have done a better job?
Engrave Hostile Environment on May's heart, I think. When she could have done the right thing she chose to do the wrong thing.
Yes, the problem with Brexit is Brexit.
An honest or even a competent PM would have explained to the Public that things were going to be difficult if the Referendum result was going to be respected, and outlined the options. It would have then pursued the politically feasible options, reaching out to whatever Parties or blocs were willing and able to give their support.
So then what? Leave with no deal? Referendum 2, choice being between the Deal and Remain? Potentially. But a gutsy move for a man who chose to hide under a table in Afghanistan rather than resign over a runway (though he'd have more to lose/gain in this scenario than the past).
General Election? What for? Unless he can win significantly, and a pre-departure GE having attempted to get the deal through again, would lose Boris his apparent advantage of being tough on leaving, with BP gobbling up votes aplenty. I imagine the Lib Dems would do very well but it wouldn't help the Conservatives.
If he wants a GE he has to do it fast, so he can still run on renegotiation and show a bit of leg to the no-dealers. No guarantee that Corbyn will cooperate though.
I think he might do the referendum. He'd look shameless, bold and audacious, which he would enjoy. He could announce it with a grand optimistic thing about how Leave won before and Leave will win again, and it would show the whingers and remoaners and make them STFU for a generation. If he wins it he wins, and if he loses he's in the post-Indy SNP seat, the spiritual leader of the defeated tribe, which is probably where he intended to be before rather carelessly winning the previous one.
Off topic, why for the love of God is the taxpayer paying for the furniture of a man who earned several hundred thousand pounds last year. Why can’t the fat git buy his own bloody bed and mattress?
Christ. Look at the photo. The candidate is the only person in the room under 70.
We are living through the final days of the Conservative Party.
And yet they don't seem to have a problem finding young to youngish candidates.
'If you are a Conservative at 20 you have no heart and if you are not a Conservative after 40 you have no head' as Churchill supposedly said and still holds true today
A friend and I agreed this week that we've moved left as we got older - the weaknesses and unfairness of free markets unconstrained as far as they are today have become steadily more apparent over the years.
And would you really, hand on heart, say that someone with a good brain would say that Conservative Government has been successful in the last few years? Too much of the Conservative appeal (just like Labour in 2010) is "vote for us because we're not the other lot". But eventually all parties need time in Opposition to sort out what the'yre actually for. What, apart from an ill-defined Brexit and some nice environmental policies, is the current Government for?
I have become more left wing as I have got not only older but richer. The world is almost laughably unfair, and getting worse by the day. If the elite conspire to block a reasonable social democratic solution they will have only themselves to blame when they are hanging from lamp posts. (not that I will be cheering that outcome on, obviously - I intend to sit the revolution out).
Off topic, why for the love of God is the taxpayer paying for the furniture of a man who earned several hundred thousand pounds last year. Why can’t the fat git buy his own bloody bed and mattress?
Do we gather Carrie isn't moving in with him either?
Let's imagine Boris is scared off a no deal, and ends up winning the contest to be PM (both eminently possible).
What's he do?
Could try and get the deal with cosmetic differences through (it's not Theresa May's Terrible Deal, it's Boris Johnson's Lisbon Deal. Totally different. Look, they even changed the font).
Does that get Remainers/Labour to back it?
Probably not.
So then what? Leave with no deal? Referendum 2, choice being between the Deal and Remain? Potentially. But a gutsy move for a man who chose to hide under a table in Afghanistan rather than resign over a runway (though he'd have more to lose/gain in this scenario than the past).
General Election? What for? Unless he can win significantly, and a pre-departure GE having attempted to get the deal through again, would lose Boris his apparent advantage of being tough on leaving, with BP gobbling up votes aplenty. I imagine the Lib Dems would do very well but it wouldn't help the Conservatives.
Straight revocation? Can't see it.
A good summation. The thing is he has to do something. Will he be able to renogiate the WA? That's highly unlikely, he may get a new form of words but that won't fool many anybody. It certainly won't fool the DUP and they could withdraw support. If he crashes out with No Deal he still has to have some sort of deal in order to trade with the EU, WTO won't do for long and the electorate will see how bad it is pretty quickly. So leaving with No Deal isn't an end in itself, it just continues the problem but from a worse position. He will however be Prime Minister. Would he want to become a short-lived PM, as is a distinct possibility if he called a GE? Maybe he'll risk that. So, perhaps a new referendum would be his best bet. If the rsult is again to Leave we'd all be back where we were again. However if the result is to Remain, then Boris could continue being PM with DUP support plus a couple of returners from ChangeUK. If the result was a decisive win for Remain, he could get a relief bounce. The Tories could even win in 2022.
But to be absolutely clear, the leaks had nothing to do with Brexit.
“A ‘shocking’ letter written by the ‘impartial’ US ambassador.... expressing what has been said by many in Washington and the U.K...”
As somebody pointed out, this ‘“story” reads like it’s been edited by about 6 different people.
He's got a long, long way for someone starting out apparently so unsupported. Either he's very bright, and lucky or........
Yes, it is striking that a 19 year-old freelance with only a few months’ experience had so many “trusted sources” senior in the civil service, ready to drop their schedule to go out to lunch with him.
The BXP fingerprints are there in the article.
He’s got no journalistic record. He’s worked for various BXP/UKIP fronts. He’s the latest patsy for the Brexit elite.
Off topic, why for the love of God is the taxpayer paying for the furniture of a man who earned several hundred thousand pounds last year. Why can’t the fat git buy his own bloody bed and mattress?
Do we gather Carrie isn't moving in with him either?
Mr. Punter, the problem is it isn't just a 'Boris' fix.
It affects us all. And MPs have a critical role to play, a responsibility they've abdicated by opposing everything. Their words are against no deal but their actions actively make no deal more probable.
Boris is a coward. But as PM he cannot hide from making a decision. So what does a craven fool do when he has to make a choice?
I do wonder if a referendum is more likely than many suspect. It hands the responsibility over to others (the electorate). Boris can return to campaigning rather than governing, spouting speeches rather than making decisions. If he wins, he'll crow about it. If he loses, he'll feign (poorly) being a statesman and accepting the democratic decision of the electorate.
It's also something that's probably in his power to grant. MPs who want to leave but oppose no deal and pro-Remain MPs could both support a second referendum.
The alternatives are winning another crack at the deal (unlikely, I think), straight revocation (even more unlikely), or leaving with no deal (entirely within Boris' power to achieve, but if he's wetting the bed at the thought of it, this seems unlikely). Another election would see him lose ground to BP for having softened his departure stance, whilst those whose votes are dictated by being pro-EU can flock to the Lib Dems, weakening the Conservatives (Labour might also go backwards).
Is there another option I've failed to consider? If that's a comprehensive list, then a second referendum might be the favourite.
A second Referendum was always what I thought was May's least painful way out, but she was vehemently hostile to it, and it never had enough Parliamentary support anyway.
I think Boris will try to renegotiate the Deal, fail and then rather publicly refuse to rule out No Deal. Parliament will then VONC him and he can say he tried but was bounced out by Treacherous MPs.
What happens after a VONC is hard to predict. So is Boris.
Morning Consult is tracking Trump approval/disapproval on a state-by-state basis.
There are some surprisingly strong results in there for Trump, like Virginia and Delaware from the Blue column looking like possible pickups and, with Arizona and Nevada looking like 50/50 shots.
More worrying for him is the "rust belt" and Iowa. Wisconsin, which he edged in 2016, is showing -16. Michigan, another close win, is -15. Iowa, which he won comfortably is -12.
This could be a key resource looking at next year's election.
Trump +24% net approval in Alabama, +18% in Mississippi and +19% in West Virginia but -29% in California and -24% in New York and -26% in Massachusetts, the US divide in one
True, but only +3 (down from 25) in Alaska and +4 (down from 21) in Texas should also worry him.
Off topic, why for the love of God is the taxpayer paying for the furniture of a man who earned several hundred thousand pounds last year. Why can’t the fat git buy his own bloody bed and mattress?
Do we gather Carrie isn't moving in with him either?
Do we even care?
Boris might be recalling Churchill's appointment as First Lord of the Admiralty:
Admiralty House was a different proposition. The rent charged for some of London’s finest rooms was only £500 a year, but the First Lord was expected to meet the wages of twelve servants, seven more than the Churchills employed at Eccleston Square. Making calculations on Admiralty notepaper, Churchill decided that he could not afford the move. Lough, David. No More Champagne: Churchill and his Money.
Sorry Alistair but you are far too generous to Mrs May.
She was the female Gordon Brown.
In hindsight she was even worse than Brown. She lacked his intellectual gravitas.
She didn’t run up £150Bn of deficit in one year though.
She was not leading the world in dealing with the global financial crisis.
Neither was Brown. He ensured we were in the worst of positions to deal with the crisis when it came.
Gordon Brown saved the world, or at least led the international response. He really did.
Strange, but true. It may have been the only good thing about his Premiership, but it was a biggy.
I've always been struck by the mirror image with Blair, who was generally a good PM with one big catastrophe to his name, Iraq.
Its not true. Brown was spending far too much money and relying on the city dividend. When that failed we were stuffed.. He had no idea about guarding the nations finances. Like every Labour Govt it end in tears, but that one ended in rivers of tears for everyone,.
First, you are talking about the years before the crisis which are irrelevant to Brown having led the international response to the crisis.
Second, what you claim is wrong anyway. By international or by historical comparison, pre-crisis spending was not excessive or even remarkable. This is no doubt why the Conservative Opposition felt able to commit to matching Labour's spending plans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
NO they are NOT irrelevant. Two yrs into Blairs premiership the Labour Govt threw off any pretence of sound management of the economy and started spending money as if it grew on trees. That is the start of the trouble. Had Labour continued with Ken Clarke's fiscal plan, the disaster we suffered could have been mitigated to a major extent. The fact that Brown crapped on the economy and then had a major part in the sewage clear up is not worthy of any praise.
Sorry Alistair but you are far too generous to Mrs May.
She was the female Gordon Brown.
In hindsight she was even worse than Brown. She lacked his intellectual gravitas.
She didn’t run up £150Bn of deficit in one year though.
She was not leading the world in dealing with the global financial crisis.
Neither was Brown. He ensured we were in the worst of positions to deal with the crisis when it came.
Gordon Brown saved the world, or at least led the international response. He really did.
Strange, but true. It may have been the only good thing about his Premiership, but it was a biggy.
I've always been struck by the mirror image with Blair, who was generally a good PM with one big catastrophe to his name, Iraq.
Its not true. Brown was spending far too much money and relying on the city dividend. When that failed we were stuffed.. He had no idea about guarding the nations finances. Like every Labour Govt it end in tears, but that one ended in rivers of tears for everyone,.
First, you are talking about the years before the crisis which are irrelevant to Brown having led the international response to the crisis.
Second, what you claim is wrong anyway. By international or by historical comparison, pre-crisis spending was not excessive or even remarkable. This is no doubt why the Conservative Opposition felt able to commit to matching Labour's spending plans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
NO they are NOT irrelevant. Two yrs into Blairs premiership the Labour Govt threw off any pretence of sound management of the economy and started spending money as if it grew on trees. That is the start of the trouble. Had Labour continued with Ken Clarke's fiscal plan, the disaster we suffered could have been mitigated to a major extent. The fact that Brown crapped on the economy and then had a major part in the sewage clear up is not worthy of any praise.
The global financial crisis which started in America had nothing to do with Brown or Labour or pre-crisis spending. And what you characterise as spending money as if it grew on trees was, as already remarked, good enough for Cameron and Osborne to follow. This is because spending was not profligate by either historical or international comparison.
If he wants a GE he has to do it fast, so he can still run on renegotiation and show a bit of leg to the no-dealers. No guarantee that Corbyn will cooperate though.
I think he might do the referendum. He'd look shameless, bold and audacious, which he would enjoy. He could announce it with a grand optimistic thing about how Leave won before and Leave will win again, and it would show the whingers and remoaners and make them STFU for a generation. If he wins it he wins, and if he loses he's in the post-Indy SNP seat, the spiritual leader of the defeated tribe, which is probably where he intended to be before rather carelessly winning the previous one.
Lol, sounds persuasive. EiT's pieces are always enjoyably sharp. I wish he'd write some leading articles too, as a further strengthening of the site's strong team..
Sorry Alistair but you are far too generous to Mrs May.
She was the female Gordon Brown.
In hindsight she was even worse than Brown. She lacked his intellectual gravitas.
She didn’t run up £150Bn of deficit in one year though.
She was not leading the world in dealing with the global financial crisis.
Neither was Brown. He ensured we were in the worst of positions to deal with the crisis when it came.
Gordon Brown saved the world, or at least led the international response. He really did.
Strange, but true. It may have been the only good thing about his Premiership, but it was a biggy.
I've always been struck by the mirror image with Blair, who was generally a good PM with one big catastrophe to his name, Iraq.
Its not true. Brown was spending far too much money and relying on the city dividend. When that failed we were stuffed.. He had no idea about guarding the nations finances. Like every Labour Govt it end in tears, but that one ended in rivers of tears for everyone,.
First, you are talking about the years before the crisis which are irrelevant to Brown having led the international response to the crisis.
Second, what you claim is wrong anyway. By international or by historical comparison, pre-crisis spending was not excessive or even remarkable. This is no doubt why the Conservative Opposition felt able to commit to matching Labour's spending plans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
NO they are NOT irrelevant. Two yrs into Blairs premiership the Labour Govt threw off any pretence of sound management of the economy and started spending money as if it grew on trees. That is the start of the trouble. Had Labour continued with Ken Clarke's fiscal plan, the disaster we suffered could have been mitigated to a major extent. The fact that Brown crapped on the economy and then had a major part in the sewage clear up is not worthy of any praise.
The global financial crisis which started in America had nothing to do with Brown or Labour or pre-crisis spending. And what you characterise as spending money as if it grew on trees was, as already remarked, good enough for Cameron and Osborne to follow. This is because spending was not profligate by either historical or international comparison.
Let's imagine Boris is scared off a no deal, and ends up winning the contest to be PM (both eminently possible).
What's he do?
Could try and get the deal with cosmetic differences through (it's not Theresa May's Terrible Deal, it's Boris Johnson's Lisbon Deal. Totally different. Look, they even changed the font).
Does that get Remainers/Labour to back it?
Probably not.
So then what? Leave with no deal? Referendum 2, choice being between the Deal and Remain? Potentially. But a gutsy move for a man who chose to hide under a table in Afghanistan rather than resign over a runway (though he'd have more to lose/gain in this scenario than the past).
General Election? What for? Unless he can win significantly, and a pre-departure GE having attempted to get the deal through again, would lose Boris his apparent advantage of being tough on leaving, with BP gobbling up votes aplenty. I imagine the Lib Dems would do very well but it wouldn't help the Conservatives.
Straight revocation? Can't see it.
Boris can drop Theresa May's red lines on FoM. This might tempt the EU to at least agree to change the cover photo on the WA. More importantly, he can massively extend the transition period, with the cover story that 10 years (say) will mean a technical solution can be developed for the Irish border, so the hated backstop will never be introduced.
This has attractions for the EU, Ireland, the DUP, Brexiteers and the ERG, and also Remainers, since it is soft Brexit or even BINO for the duration.
So we can leave on October 31st; everyone except Nigel Farage is happy; Boris is the best Prime Minister since the war and his statue is erected on the fourth plinth.
Not bad could just about live with that
As could many of us. The flaw is the bit about Nigel Farage being unhappy, because that means Tories down to about 15% in the polls because they failed to deliver the right kind of Brexit.
Mr. Punter, the problem is it isn't just a 'Boris' fix.
It affects us all. And MPs have a critical role to play, a responsibility they've abdicated by opposing everything. Their words are against no deal but their actions actively make no deal more probable.
Boris is a coward. But as PM he cannot hide from making a decision. So what does a craven fool do when he has to make a choice?
I do wonder if a referendum is more likely than many suspect. It hands the responsibility over to others (the electorate). Boris can return to campaigning rather than governing, spouting speeches rather than making decisions. If he wins, he'll crow about it. If he loses, he'll feign (poorly) being a statesman and accepting the democratic decision of the electorate.
It's also something that's probably in his power to grant. MPs who want to leave but oppose no deal and pro-Remain MPs could both support a second referendum.
The alternatives are winning another crack at the deal (unlikely, I think), straight revocation (even more unlikely), or leaving with no deal (entirely within Boris' power to achieve, but if he's wetting the bed at the thought of it, this seems unlikely). Another election would see him lose ground to BP for having softened his departure stance, whilst those whose votes are dictated by being pro-EU can flock to the Lib Dems, weakening the Conservatives (Labour might also go backwards).
Is there another option I've failed to consider? If that's a comprehensive list, then a second referendum might be the favourite.
A second Referendum was always what I thought was May's least painful way out, but she was vehemently hostile to it, and it never had enough Parliamentary support anyway.
I think Boris will try to renegotiate the Deal, fail and then rather publicly refuse to rule out No Deal. Parliament will then VONC him and he can say he tried but was bounced out by Treacherous MPs.
What happens after a VONC is hard to predict. So is Boris.
Uncertain times.
Also my central prediction. It’s a get out of jail free card for Boris, and though it provides non-trivial chances of No Deal and/or the destruction of the Tory Party, it maximises his chances of survival.
NO they are NOT irrelevant. Two yrs into Blairs premiership the Labour Govt threw off any pretence of sound management of the economy and started spending money as if it grew on trees. That is the start of the trouble. Had Labour continued with Ken Clarke's fiscal plan, the disaster we suffered could have been mitigated to a major extent. The fact that Brown crapped on the economy and then had a major part in the sewage clear up is not worthy of any praise.
The Conservative spending plans that Labour followed for two years were absurdly tight - I think Ken Clarke admitted he would have not followed them if they had won in 1997. Labour's fiscal policies after 1999 (that the Tories said they'd match) were not a significant contributor to the crisis. Lax regulation of the City (that the Tories criticised for not being lax enough) was a bigger contributor. A US-centred global recession, caused by the failure of Lehman Bros, years of too dovish Fed policy, and an unsustainable housing and construction boom in the US and elsewhere, assisted by a whole load of lax underwriting standards in the US mortgage market, was the reason. The failure from a UK fiscal policy point of view was not to envisage that after the boom was over tax revenues would be lower, but that was a failure of Economic planning, I have no doubt that the Tories would have made the same mistake (like they did in the late eighties). Fiscal policy during 2010-15 made more mistakes than Brown did, IMO. Way too tight, and ultimately largely counterproductive.
Let's imagine Boris is scared off a no deal, and ends up winning the contest to be PM (both eminently possible).
What's he do?
Could try and get the deal with cosmetic differences through (it's not Theresa May's Terrible Deal, it's Boris Johnson's Lisbon Deal. Totally different. Look, they even changed the font).
Does that get Remainers/Labour to back it?
Probably not.
So then what? Leave with no deal? Referendum 2, choice being between the Deal and Remain? Potentially. But a gutsy move for a man who chose to hide under a table in Afghanistan rather than resign over a runway (though he'd have more to lose/gain in this scenario than the past).
General Election? What for? Unless he can win significantly, and a pre-departure GE having attempted to get the deal through again, would lose Boris his apparent advantage of being tough on leaving, with BP gobbling up votes aplenty. I imagine the Lib Dems would do very well but it wouldn't help the Conservatives.
Straight revocation? Can't see it.
Boris can drop Theresa May's red lines on FoM. This might tempt the EU to at least agree to change the cover photo on the WA. More importantly, he can massively extend the transition period, with the cover story that 10 years (say) will mean a technical solution can be developed for the Irish border, so the hated backstop will never be introduced.
This has attractions for the EU, Ireland, the DUP, Brexiteers and the ERG, and also Remainers, since it is soft Brexit or even BINO for the duration.
So we can leave on October 31st; everyone except Nigel Farage is happy; Boris is the best Prime Minister since the war and his statue is erected on the fourth plinth.
I don’t see how a massive extension to the transition period is remotely appealing to leavers? The transition period is basically being fully in the EU with ZERO say over the divisions of the EU. When the ERG produced their long list of complaints about the WA, most could be easily countered by the fact that they had conflated the transition period with the long term relationship. The only real complaint that could endure was the backstop. That doesn’t apply if we’re in a massively increased transition period. Unless either there is scope to cut it short, or you are confusing with a time limit on the backstop period (a contradiction) which Johnson has specifically ruled out.
Mr. Punter, the problem is it isn't just a 'Boris' fix.
It affects us all. And MPs have a critical role to play, a responsibility they've abdicated by opposing everything. Their words are against no deal but their actions actively make no deal more probable.
Boris is a coward. But as PM he cannot hide from making a decision. So what does a craven fool do when he has to make a choice?
I do wonder if a referendum is more likely than many suspect. It hands the responsibility over to others (the electorate). Boris can return to campaigning rather than governing, spouting speeches rather than making decisions. If he wins, he'll crow about it. If he loses, he'll feign (poorly) being a statesman and accepting the democratic decision of the electorate.
It's also something that's probably in his power to grant. MPs who want to leave but oppose no deal and pro-Remain MPs could both support a second referendum.
The alternatives are winning another crack at the deal (unlikely, I think), straight revocation (even more unlikely), or leaving with no deal (entirely within Boris' power to achieve, but if he's wetting the bed at the thought of it, this seems unlikely). Another election would see him lose ground to BP for having softened his departure stance, whilst those whose votes are dictated by being pro-EU can flock to the Lib Dems, weakening the Conservatives (Labour might also go backwards).
Is there another option I've failed to consider? If that's a comprehensive list, then a second referendum might be the favourite.
A second Referendum was always what I thought was May's least painful way out, but she was vehemently hostile to it, and it never had enough Parliamentary support anyway.
I think Boris will try to renegotiate the Deal, fail and then rather publicly refuse to rule out No Deal. Parliament will then VONC him and he can say he tried but was bounced out by Treacherous MPs.
What happens after a VONC is hard to predict. So is Boris.
Uncertain times.
Also my central prediction. It’s a get out of jail free card for Boris, and though it provides non-trivial chances of No Deal and/or the destruction of the Tory Party, it maximises his chances of survival.
Perhaps. Not really sure how a VoNC shakes out though.
I think it wins, but what then? Maybe a temporary Govt/PM and a GE? Maybe the EU allows an extension for this? Maybe the GE resolves matters one way or the other?
Let's imagine Boris is scared off a no deal, and ends up winning the contest to be PM (both eminently possible).
What's he do?
Could try and get the deal with cosmetic differences through (it's not Theresa May's Terrible Deal, it's Boris Does that get Remainers/Labour to back it?
Probably not.
So then what? Leave with no deal? Referendum 2, choice being between the Deal and Remain? Potentially. But a gutsy move for a man who chose to hide under a table in Afghanistan rather than resign over a runway (though he'd have more to lose/gain in this scenario than the past).
General Election? What for? Unless he can win significantly, and a pre-departure GE having attempted to get the deal through again, would lose Boris his apparent advantage of being tough on leaving, with BP gobbling up votes aplenty. I imagine the Lib Dems would do very well Straight revocation? Can't see it.
A good summation. The thing is he has to do something. Will he be able to renogiate the WA? That's highly unlikely, he may get a new form of words but that won't fool many anybody. It certainly won't fool the DUP and they could withdraw support. If he crashes out with No Deal he still has to have some sort of deal in order to trade with the EU, WTO won't do for long and the electorate will see how bad it is pretty quickly. So leaving with No Deal isn't an end in itself, it just continues the problem but from a worse position. He will however be Prime Minister. Would he want to become a short-lived PM, as is a distinct possibility if he called a GE? Maybe he'll risk that. So, perhaps a new referendum would be his best bet. If the rsult is again to Leave we'd all be back where we were again. However if the result is to Remain, then Boris could continue being PM with DUP support plus a couple of returners from ChangeUK. If the result was a decisive win for Remain, he could get a relief bounce. The Tories could even win in 2022.
The never ending BINO is still favourite in my book. The first signs Ireland and the EU might be up for a modified approach are already appearing. Boris has been careful to explain his 31 Oct red line as something he has to say in advance in order to get a good deal. If he lands the deal he stands some chance of getting more of the ERG on board (on a Nixon in China basis) and possibly some Labour leavers as well. Yes, actually having to extend for a few more months will be rocky for him (although there aren’t any elections scheduled over the winter) but he’ll reckon that actually delivering a leave within six months of taking office would compare pretty well with May’s three years of failure.
GE Spring 2020.
Edit/ obviously that would be a plan, but one that might fail at various points. As before, it probably hangs on the ERG. They’d know for sure it is last chance saloon.
Let's imagine Boris is scared off a no deal, and ends up winning the contest to be PM (both eminently possible).
What's he do?
Could try and get the deal with cosmetic differences through (it's not Theresa May's Terrible Deal, it's Boris Johnson's Lisbon Deal. Totally different. Look, they even changed the font).
Does that get Remainers/Labour to back it?
Probably not.
So then what? Leave with no deal? Referendum 2, choice being between the Deal and Remain? Potentially. But a gutsy move for a man who chose to hide under a table in Afghanistan rather than resign over a runway (though he'd have more to lose/gain in this scenario than the past).
General Election? What for? Unless he can win significantly, and a pre-departure GE having attempted to get the deal through again, would lose Boris his apparent advantage of being tough on leaving, with BP gobbling up votes aplenty. I imagine the Lib Dems would do very well but it wouldn't help the Conservatives.
Straight revocation? Can't see it.
Good post, Mr D. Wins his long-wanted prize then finds his victory is hollow.
Like Brown, he has along lusted for the job, but not for any reason other than ambition.
As discussed above, that, generally speaking, didn't turn out well Either for himself or his party. Although Mr B himself seems now to be in a better place than for many years!
Of course. He dropping rapidly down the list of “worst PMs”. Give it a couple more years and he could be mid table!
Mr. Punter, yeah, I was surprised she didn't go for another referendum (as a threat if her second deal attempt failed in the Commons). But there we are.
Not shameful. It's not easy for young male jounalists to climb up the greasy poll of right wing journalism like Oakeshott. They are missing an important piece of equiptment
Let's imagine Boris is scared off a no deal, and ends up winning the contest to be PM (both eminently possible).
What's he do?
Could try and get the deal with cosmetic differences through (it's not Theresa May's Terrible Deal, it's Boris Johnson's Lisbon Deal. Totally different. Look, they even changed the font).
Does that get Remainers/Labour to back it?
Probably not.
So then what? Leave with no deal? Referendum 2, choice being between the Deal and Remain? Potentially. But a gutsy move for a man who chose to hide under a table in Afghanistan rather than resign over a runway (though he'd have more to lose/gain in this scenario than the past).
General Election? What for? Unless he can win significantly, and a pre-departure GE having attempted to get the deal through again, would lose Boris his apparent advantage of being tough on leaving, with BP gobbling up votes aplenty. I imagine the Lib Dems would do very well but it wouldn't help the Conservatives.
Straight revocation? Can't see it.
Boris can drop Theresa May's red lines on FoM. This might tempt the EU to at least agree to change the cover photo on the WA. More importantly, he can massively extend the transition period, with the cover story that 10 years (say) will mean a technical solution can be developed for the Irish border, so the hated backstop will never be introduced.
This has attractions for the EU, Ireland, the DUP, Brexiteers and the ERG, and also Remainers, since it is soft Brexit or even BINO for the duration.
So we can leave on October 31st; everyone except Nigel Farage is happy; Boris is the best Prime Minister since the war and his statue is erected on the fourth plinth.
I don’t see how a massive extension to the transition period is remotely appealing to leavers? The transition period is basically being fully in the EU with ZERO say over the divisions of the EU. When the ERG produced their long list of complaints about the WA, most could be easily countered by the fact that they had conflated the transition period with the long term relationship. The only real complaint that could endure was the backstop. That doesn’t apply if we’re in a massively increased transition period. Unless either there is scope to cut it short, or you are confusing with a time limit on the backstop period (a contradiction) which Johnson has specifically ruled out.
Yes, that is the point. We enter the hated backstop only if no permanent arrangement has been made by the end of the transition period. A longer transition allows time to, as it has been phrased, spaff some money on some geeks to produce a technical solution to the Irish border so we never enter the backstop at all. So we can leave on 31st October.
Ne economy and then had a major part in the sewage clear up is not worthy of any praise.
The global financial crisis which started in America had nothing to do with Brown or Labour or pre-crisis spending. And what you characterise as spending money as if it grew on trees was, as already remarked, good enough for Cameron and Osborne to follow. This is because spending was not profligate by either historical or international comparison.
Pfffffffffffffff
Yes, it really did - sub-prime debt in vast amounts, triggered by Clinton's well-intentioned but shortsighted policy of extending borrowing to people who couldn't afford it. The borrowing was then parcelled up and sold blind around the financial markets in a modern re-run of the South Sea Bubble. Obviously it wasn't long before the toxic debt was being hawked around the European Markets.
It's well documented in Nate Silver's book The Signal and the Noise, and also covered in Andrew Rawnesley's tome The End Of The Party.
Both books are well worth a read for reasons well beyond their coverage of the Financial Crisis.
A brutal but fair article. May could have been Prime Minister until the heat death of the sun and slowworms with typewriters would have had a better chance of achieving studied competence. That any thinking, however incompetent, was subcontracted to her carers is a defining criticism.
Mr. Punter, yeah, I was surprised she didn't go for another referendum (as a threat if her second deal attempt failed in the Commons). But there we are.
Her main problem was surviving attacks from inside the Conservative Party, which ultimately brought her down. I think Boris would have a bit more latitude, since he's basically defacto the leading Tory leaver.
Mr. Punter, yeah, I was surprised she didn't go for another referendum (as a threat if her second deal attempt failed in the Commons). But there we are.
Apparently she remained calm most of the time in Office, but the one thing that made her visibly angry was any suggestion of a 2nd Referendum.
NO they are NOT irrelevant. Two yrs into Blairs premiership the Labour Govt threw off any pretence of sound management of the economy and started spending money as if it grew on trees. That is the start of the trouble. Had Labour continued with Ken Clarke's fiscal plan, the disaster we suffered could have been mitigated to a major extent. The fact that Brown crapped on the economy and then had a major part in the sewage clear up is not worthy of any praise.
The Conservative spending plans that Labour followed for two years were absurdly tight - I think Ken Clarke admitted he would have not followed them if they had won in 1997. Labour's fiscal policies after 1999 (that the Tories said they'd match) were not a significant contributor to the crisis. Lax regulation of the City (that the Tories criticised for not being lax enough) was a bigger contributor. A US-centred global recession, caused by the failure of Lehman Bros, years of too dovish Fed policy, and an unsustainable housing and construction boom in the US and elsewhere, assisted by a whole load of lax underwriting standards in the US mortgage market, was the reason. The failure from a UK fiscal policy point of view was not to envisage that after the boom was over tax revenues would be lower, but that was a failure of Economic planning, I have no doubt that the Tories would have made the same mistake (like they did in the late eighties). Fiscal policy during 2010-15 made more mistakes than Brown did, IMO. Way too tight, and ultimately largely counterproductive.
you mean we should have spent our way out of the situation...
Let's imagine Boris is scared off a no deal, and ends up winning the contest to be PM (both eminently possible).
What's he do?
Could try and get the deal with cosmetic differences through (it's not Theresa May's Terrible Deal, it's Boris Johnson's Lisbon Deal. Totally different. Look, they even changed the font).
Does that get Remainers/Labour to back it?
Probably not.
So then what? Leave with no deal? Referendum 2, choice being between the Deal and Remain? Potentially. But a gutsy move for a man who chose to hide under a table in Afghanistan rather than resign over a runway (though he'd have more to lose/gain in this scenario than the past).
General Election? What for? Unless he can win significantly, and a pre-departure GE having attempted to get the deal through again, would lose Boris his apparent advantage of being tough on leaving, with BP gobbling up votes aplenty. I imagine the Lib Dems would do very well but it wouldn't help the Conservatives.
Straight revocation? Can't see it.
Boris can drop Theresa May's red lines on FoM. This might tempt the EU to at least agree to change the cover photo on the WA. More importantly, he can massively extend the transition period, with the cover story that 10 years (say) will mean a technical solution can be developed for the Irish border, so the hated backstop will never be introduced.
This has attractions for the EU, Ireland, the DUP, Brexiteers and the ERG, and also Remainers, since it is soft Brexit or even BINO for the duration.
So we can leave on October 31st; everyone except Nigel Farage is happy; Boris is the best Prime Minister since the war and his statue is erected on the fourth plinth.
Not bad could just about live with that
As could many of us. The flaw is the bit about Nigel Farage being unhappy, because that means Tories down to about 15% in the polls because they failed to deliver the right kind of Brexit.
If we have left on 31st October, even into BINO, then Farage might be unhappy but I doubt he'd take many voters along with him. In broad brushstrokes, we will have exited the EU. On the side of a bus, Boris will have delivered on the referendum result. Boris will get his poll bounce for a snap election before it dawns on Brexit voters in coastal towns that they still have few prospects because it was not the EU that screwed them in the first place. TBP will not survive Brexit or even BINO just as Ukip faded after 2016.
Off topic, why for the love of God is the taxpayer paying for the furniture of a man who earned several hundred thousand pounds last year. Why can’t the fat git buy his own bloody bed and mattress?
Do we gather Carrie isn't moving in with him either?
That would be a shame, Maybe they could commission Annie Leibovitz to do a shot of our new PM and his first lady
Returning to the topic, alternatives to May would have to come from the ruling Conservative Party. Which of Cameron, Gove, Johnson and Leadsom would realistically have done a better job on Brexit than May?
Let's imagine Boris is scared off a no deal, and ends up winning the contest to be PM (both eminently possible).
What's he do?
Could try and get the deal with cosmetic differences through (it's not Theresa May's Terrible Deal, it's Boris Johnson's Lisbon Deal. Totally different. Look, they even changed the font).
Does that get Remainers/Labour to back it?
Probably not.
Straight revocation? Can't see it.
Boris can drop Theresa May's red lines on FoM. This might tempt the EU to at least agree to change the cover photo on the WA. More importantly, he can massively extend the transition period, with the cover story that 10 years (say) will mean a technical solution can be developed for the Irish border, so the hated backstop will never be introduced.
This has attractions for the EU, Ireland, the DUP, Brexiteers and the ERG, and also Remainers, since it is soft Brexit or even BINO for the duration.
So we can leave on October 31st; everyone except Nigel Farage is happy; Boris is the best Prime Minister since the war and his statue is erected on the fourth plinth.
I don’t see how a massive extension to the transition period is remotely appealing to leavers? The transition period is basically being fully in the EU with ZERO say over the divisions of the EU. When the ERG produced their long list of complaints about the WA, most could be easily countered by the fact that they had conflated the transition period with the long term relationship. The only real complaint that could endure was the backstop. That doesn’t apply if we’re in a massively increased transition period. Unless either there is scope to cut it short, or you are confusing with a time limit on the backstop period (a contradiction) which Johnson has specifically ruled out.
Yes, that is the point. We enter the hated backstop only if no permanent arrangement has been made by the end of the transition period. A longer transition allows time to, as it has been phrased, spaff some money on some geeks to produce a technical solution to the Irish border so we never enter the backstop at all. So we can leave on 31st October.
Apologies, but i'm still struggling to understand the attraction (to leavers). During the transition we are subject to the ultimate BINO (without any decision making powers). More than any other option (Norway, Switzerland, Unicornia). Why is that preferable to entering the backstop (which, with the exception of the Customs Union) meets pretty much every key red line that leavers wanted? Not subject to the ECJ, control of immigration, end to permanent ongoing payments into the EU, some others...
Christ. Look at the photo. The candidate is the only person in the room under 70.
We are living through the final days of the Conservative Party.
No, there are plenty of 50 and 60 year olds there and 1 or 2 at the back look about 30 to 40.
This is also Totnes, ie retirement central
Look!! There are some 60 year olds. The Party has another 15 years at least.
As I said earlier the Tories have not won under 30s since 1983, however they have still won 5 elections since as voters get more conservative as they get older, indeed Labour have not won over 65s since 1997.
People will still get older decades from now and we will still have pensioners and they will still vote Tory (assuming the Tories deliver Brexit of course)
You’re counting 2010 and 2017 as “wins” there...
Which party had PM and Chancellor of the Exchequer after 2010 and 2017?
Judging by your reaction to them in your posts, the Liberal Democrats
Returning to the topic, alternatives to May would have to come from the ruling Conservative Party. Which of Cameron, Gove, Johnson and Leadsom would realistically have done a better job on Brexit than May?
Well arguably we might have been in a better position now, if Johnson had been in charge (and probably long gone) 3 years ago.
I think Gove would have done a better job (with Brexit) because he wouldn't have had the same red lines (especially on FoM).
Boris is offering jobs like dodgy tickets touts with fake tickets for the same handful seats.
It looks like various wannabe cabinet ministers are briefing the STimes that they have been promised X,Y,Z. Trying to bounce Boris and his kitchen cabinet.
Pathetic.
desperate troughers scrambling to keep their snouts in
Off topic, why for the love of God is the taxpayer paying for the furniture of a man who earned several hundred thousand pounds last year. Why can’t the fat git buy his own bloody bed and mattress?
I suppose one can't change the rules according to a means test for each incoming PM. More generally, I've noticed that very wealthy people are not usually inclined to shrug off benefits that come their way unless they come with inconvenient conditions. Possibly that attitude assists them in becoming wealthy?
I'm not especially bothered by that, so long as they don't then treat people on benefits at the bottom of the ladder with lofty disdain. For instance, people who go to great lengths to avoid paying tax are in my view not entitled to sneer at people who claim disability benefits with marginally debatable disabilities. It's exactly the same "take what you can get" attitude, with considerably less justification.
I'm unsure as to how civil servants giving an apocalyptic view about No Deal is news. It's right up there with what bears do in the woods. But on the bright side, still clearly not awful enough for them to postpone their annual leave apparently.
Not shameful. It's not easy for young male jounalists to climb up the greasy poll of right wing journalism like Oakeshott. They are missing an important piece of equiptment
Returning to the topic, alternatives to May would have to come from the ruling Conservative Party. Which of Cameron, Gove, Johnson and Leadsom would realistically have done a better job on Brexit than May?
Cameron is our worst prime minister since Lord North. Sorry Theresa, you cannot even claim that record.
Leadsom and Boris might have made more attempt to forge a consensus, and reach out to opponents where necessary.
Gove would have been just as bad as May. Both nail their colours to the mast; neither compromises; both subscribe to the Brian Clough dictum: we sit down and discuss it over a cup of tea, then we agree I was right. He might not have called a snap election, I suppose.
Returning to the topic, alternatives to May would have to come from the ruling Conservative Party. Which of Cameron, Gove, Johnson and Leadsom would realistically have done a better job on Brexit than May?
Well arguably we might have been in a better position now, if Johnson had been in charge (and probably long gone) 3 years ago.
I think Gove would have done a better job (with Brexit) because he wouldn't have had the same red lines (especially on FoM).
May’s red lines were a function of the Vote Leave campaign that Gove was the face of. It was Gove who did the press conference with scare stories about Turkey.
What a bunch of tossers the dregs of the conservative party
That's yet another problem for the Tories: "is there no beginning to their talents?" Theresa May was sincere - for which she got quite a lot of respect in the country at large- but equally she was no fun and lacked critical people and strategic skills. In the HYFUD world of deluded Torydom, Boris will replace the few remaining grown ups with these shop soiled white hopes which he believes will rescue the party from obliteration in one Brexit appeasing bound. Um, not quite. In the country at large, Boris is already wilting under a chorus of derision. JRM and Gove are widely loathed, IDS and DD seen as stupid and useless, Raab and Williamson nasty and lightweight, Fallon a crusty old sex pest, McVey a screechy media bitch and so on... These are genuinely already some of the most disliked people in the UK today.
Still at least Boris can spread the blame when his government utterly implodes in about three months.
Do you mean three months from now? That would be more or less mid-October. I wonder of he will last that long.....
Returning to the topic, alternatives to May would have to come from the ruling Conservative Party. Which of Cameron, Gove, Johnson and Leadsom would realistically have done a better job on Brexit than May?
Well arguably we might have been in a better position now, if Johnson had been in charge (and probably long gone) 3 years ago.
I think Gove would have done a better job (with Brexit) because he wouldn't have had the same red lines (especially on FoM).
We're saying it might be better to have had Johnson from the off so we can get that disaster out the way sooner. I'm not sure that really answers my question about which of the alternatives to May would have done a better job on Brexit.
Gove is an interesting one. He MIGHT have done a better job. That comes with heroic assumptions about his lack of preconditions, however. He is an extremely unpopular politician and he has a track record of being an unsafe pair of hands.
An excellent header by Alastair. Cruel but fair. A small point but you always appear to choose your words carefully. Why was the xenophobia "deceitful"?
Boris can drop Theresa May's red lines on FoM. This might tempt the EU to at least agree to change the cover photo on the WA. More importantly, he can massively extend the transition period, with the cover story that 10 years (say) will mean a technical solution can be developed for the Irish border, so the hated backstop will never be introduced.
This has attractions for the EU, Ireland, the DUP, Brexiteers and the ERG, and also Remainers, since it is soft Brexit or even BINO for the duration.
So we can leave on October 31st; everyone except Nigel Farage is happy; Boris is the best Prime Minister since the war and his statue is erected on the fourth plinth.
I don’t see how a massive extension to the transition period is remotely appealing to leavers? The transition period is basically being fully in the EU with ZERO say over the divisions of the EU. When the ERG produced their long list of complaints about the WA, most could be easily countered by the fact that they had conflated the transition period with the long term relationship. The only real complaint that could endure was the backstop. That doesn’t apply if we’re in a massively increased transition period. Unless either there is scope to cut it short, or you are confusing with a time limit on the backstop period (a contradiction) which Johnson has specifically ruled out.
Yes, that is the point. We enter the hated backstop only if no permanent arrangement has been made by the end of the transition period. A longer transition allows time to, as it has been phrased, spaff some money on some geeks to produce a technical solution to the Irish border so we never enter the backstop at all. So we can leave on 31st October.
Apologies, but i'm still struggling to understand the attraction (to leavers). During the transition we are subject to the ultimate BINO (without any decision making powers). More than any other option (Norway, Switzerland, Unicornia). Why is that preferable to entering the backstop (which, with the exception of the Customs Union) meets pretty much every key red line that leavers wanted? Not subject to the ECJ, control of immigration, end to permanent ongoing payments into the EU, some others...
The attraction to leavers is that we will have left. A few might quibble about the finer details but not many: even now, there is no consensus ERG line. In headline terms, we will be out. And no backstop!
I see the dastardly Western Oriental Gentlemen of the Iranian National Guard refused to take any notice of a stiff warning from Her Majesty's Navy. It may be time to raise the response level to a bloody good talking to.
Off topic, why for the love of God is the taxpayer paying for the furniture of a man who earned several hundred thousand pounds last year. Why can’t the fat git buy his own bloody bed and mattress?
I suppose one can't change the rules according to a means test for each incoming PM. More generally, I've noticed that very wealthy people are not usually inclined to shrug off benefits that come their way unless they come with inconvenient conditions. Possibly that attitude assists them in becoming wealthy?
I'm not especially bothered by that, so long as they don't then treat people on benefits at the bottom of the ladder with lofty disdain. For instance, people who go to great lengths to avoid paying tax are in my view not entitled to sneer at people who claim disability benefits with marginally debatable disabilities. It's exactly the same "take what you can get" attitude, with considerably less justification.
People take what they can get. attitudes have changed since troughing MP's were highlighted. I would always have avoided being on benefits if I possibly could . If that happened today(being on benefits), I'd take every penny I could legally squeeze out of the system.
Re: HYUFD and his "night of the long knives" post on Johnson's cabinet. There is usually a good reason why Prime Ministers try to avoid massive reshuffles (and even incoming Governments from opposition will generally like to transition people from relevant Shadow posts). Because changing Government posts creates change, upheaval, and therefore massive potential for cockup and confusion. Possibilities for personality clashes between ministers and their civil servants exacerbating problems for the civil service, and all new ministers wanting to put their stamp on their new departments rapidly. Crises of various degrees of importance can crop up anywhere across government and when you have people doing a reasonable job and are delivering stability in their department it is generally a good idea to just leave alone. Changing everyone at once is a risky business in the quietest of times, let alone what we are potentially running into in the next 4 months.
Boris can drop Theresa May's red lines on FoM. This might tempt the EU to at least agree to change the cover photo on the WA. More importantly, he can massively extend the transition period, with the cover story that 10 years (say) will mean a technical solution can be developed for the Irish border, so the hated backstop will never be introduced.
This has attractions for the EU, Ireland, the DUP, Brexiteers and the ERG, and also Remainers, since it is soft Brexit or even BINO for the duration.
So we can leave on October 31st; everyone except Nigel Farage is happy; Boris is the best Prime Minister since the war and his statue is erected on the fourth plinth.
I don’t see how a massive extension to the transition period is remotely appealing to leavers? The transition period is basically being fully in the EU with ZERO say over the divisions of the EU. When the ERG produced their long list of complaints about the WA, most could be easily countered by the fact that they had conflated the transition period with the long term relationship. The only real complaint that could endure was the backstop. That doesn’t apply if we’re in a massively increased transition period. Unless either there is scope to cut it short, or you are confusing with a time limit on the backstop period (a contradiction) which Johnson has specifically ruled out.
Yes, that is the point. We enter the hated backstop only if no permanent arrangement has been made by the end of the transition period. A longer transition allows time to, as it has been phrased, spaff some money on some geeks to produce a technical solution to the Irish border so we never enter the backstop at all. So we can leave on 31st October.
Apologies, but i'm still struggling to understand the attraction (to leavers). During the transition we are subject to the ultimate BINO (without any decision making powers). More than any other option (Norway, Switzerland, Unicornia). Why is that preferable to entering the backstop (which, with the exception of the Customs Union) meets pretty much every key red line that leavers wanted? Not subject to the ECJ, control of immigration, end to permanent ongoing payments into the EU, some others...
The attraction to leavers is that we will have left. A few might quibble about the finer details but not many: even now, there is no consensus ERG line. In headline terms, we will be out. And no backstop!
So not the backstop, but something worse than the backstop. Maybe you're right. I'm sceptical.
Returning to the topic, alternatives to May would have to come from the ruling Conservative Party. Which of Cameron, Gove, Johnson and Leadsom would realistically have done a better job on Brexit than May?
Well arguably we might have been in a better position now, if Johnson had been in charge (and probably long gone) 3 years ago.
I think Gove would have done a better job (with Brexit) because he wouldn't have had the same red lines (especially on FoM).
May’s red lines were a function of the Vote Leave campaign that Gove was the face of. It was Gove who did the press conference with scare stories about Turkey.
LOL and he was not at any briefings over the last 3 years where this was mentioned , utter bollocks. They are now setting up his U turn assuming the plebs are stupid.
Re: HYUFD and his "night of the long knives" post on Johnson's cabinet. There is usually a good reason why Prime Ministers try to avoid massive reshuffles (and even incoming Governments from opposition will generally like to transition people from relevant Shadow posts). Because changing Government posts creates change, upheaval, and therefore massive potential for cockup and confusion. Possibilities for personality clashes between ministers and their civil servants exacerbating problems for the civil service, and all new ministers wanting to put their stamp on their new departments rapidly. Crises of various degrees of importance can crop up anywhere across government and when you have people doing a reasonable job and are delivering stability in their department it is generally a good idea to just leave alone. Changing everyone at once is a risky business in the quietest of times, let alone what we are potentially running into in the next 4 months.
Today's Conhome podcast makes the point that Hammond and the other exiting ministers have opportunity to spoil Bozo's accession day with their resignations
I see the dastardly Western Oriental Gentlemen of the Iranian National Guard refused to take any notice of a stiff warning from Her Majesty's Navy. It may be time to raise the response level to a bloody good talking to.
And their claim is that the tanker allegedly ploughed into one of their fishing boats
LOL and he was not at any briefings over the last 3 years where this was mentioned , utter bollocks. They are now setting up his U turn assuming the plebs are stupid.
I'm sure I read almost word for word the same story 8-9 months ago explaining Gove's support for the Withdrawal Agreement and opposition to no deal. Make of that what you will...
Returning to the topic, alternatives to May would have to come from the ruling Conservative Party. Which of Cameron, Gove, Johnson and Leadsom would realistically have done a better job on Brexit than May?
Well arguably we might have been in a better position now, if Johnson had been in charge (and probably long gone) 3 years ago.
I think Gove would have done a better job (with Brexit) because he wouldn't have had the same red lines (especially on FoM).
People would now be clamouring for the appointment of a remainer PM like Mrs May better able to bring the country back together?
I see the dastardly Western Oriental Gentlemen of the Iranian National Guard refused to take any notice of a stiff warning from Her Majesty's Navy. It may be time to raise the response level to a bloody good talking to.
Let’s leak the ambassador’s ‘cables’ that will show them
Apologies, but i'm still struggling to understand the attraction (to leavers). During the transition we are subject to the ultimate BINO (without any decision making powers). More than any other option (Norway, Switzerland, Unicornia). Why is that preferable to entering the backstop (which, with the exception of the Customs Union) meets pretty much every key red line that leavers wanted? Not subject to the ECJ, control of immigration, end to permanent ongoing payments into the EU, some others...
I'm not sure the Backstop is anything other than a backstop. In other words it's there in case all else fails. The unacceptable implication is that the UK will be tied permanently into EU structures without any formal or real say.
The one quibble I might have is the suggestion that our economy is faltering. The rate of growth has reduced but I think that we have had a pretty good run and we probably have a bit to go before international pressures drive us to anything like a recession. Europe is slowing again which is a potential problem for us, Brexit or no Brexit. Trump is desperate to keep his bubble going until his re-election but looks to be struggling. I think that he is learning that his bull in a china shop attitude to trade is not working and damaging his own prospects (the most important thing) but who knows. And now we have Iran.
My critique of her government on the economy is that the useless passivity of Hammond has done very little to address our structural problems other than the deficit. We have not had the infrastructure spending we need, we have not addressed our appalling savings rate with the result we continue to run a very high deficit, our problems with productivity have got worse on the back of very little incentive to invest, we have created a major headache going forward by not addressing the ever increasing problem of student debt, he has done nothing to simplify our ridiculous tax code and address its patent deficiencies by which investment income is taxed more lightly than earned income. Hammond really should have been moved on some time ago and I will be glad to see him gone.
Not shameful. It's not easy for young male jounalists to climb up the greasy poll of right wing journalism like Oakeshott. They are missing an important piece of equiptment
Classy as always.
You can do better than that! One of your Guidophile colleagues called me the lowest form of pond life the other day. I'd have given him a 'like' if he's made it up himself.
NO they are NOT irrelevant. Two yrs into Blairs premiership the Labour Govt threw off any pretence of sound management of the economy and started spending money as if it grew on trees. That is the start of the trouble. Had Labour continued with Ken Clarke's fiscal plan, the disaster we suffered could have been mitigated to a major extent. The fact that Brown crapped on the economy and then had a major part in the sewage clear up is not worthy of any praise.
The Conservative spending plans that Labour followed for two years were absurdly tight - I think Ken Clarke admitted he would have not followed them if they had won in 1997. Labour's fiscal policies after 1999 (that the Tories said they'd match) were not a significant contributor to the crisis. Lax regulation of the City (that the Tories criticised for not being lax enough) was a bigger contributor. A US-centred global recession, caused by the failure of Lehman Bros, years of too dovish Fed policy, and an unsustainable housing and construction boom in the US and elsewhere, assisted by a whole load of lax underwriting standards in the US mortgage market, was the reason. The failure from a UK fiscal policy point of view was not to envisage that after the boom was over tax revenues would be lower, but that was a failure of Economic planning, I have no doubt that the Tories would have made the same mistake (like they did in the late eighties). Fiscal policy during 2010-15 made more mistakes than Brown did, IMO. Way too tight, and ultimately largely counterproductive.
you mean we should have spent our way out of the situation...
I mean we cut spending and put up taxes too fast. In my view a more gradual adjustment path would have prevented the stagnating economy, which reduced the tax take and so was in part self defeating. Especially as gilt yields remained low - there is strong global demand for safe assets and the UK was under no market pressure to cut the deficit so fast. And historically, successful debt reduction is more likely to come from economic growth than fiscal austerity. The point I am making is that it is simplistic to say fiscal policy was terrible before 2010 and great afterwards. Mistakes were made in both cases. I would argue that the mistake pre 2010 was in the assessment of the economy (not realising it was in a boom not a steady state and so running to large a deficit for that point in the cycle), whereas the mistake post 2010 was purely fiscal (too much austerity).
Sorry Alistair but you are far too generous to Mrs May.
She was the female Gordon Brown.
In hindsight she was even worse than Brown. She lacked his intellectual gravitas.
She didn’t run up £150Bn of deficit in one year though.
She was not leading the world in dealing with the global financial crisis.
Neither was Brown. He ensured we were in the worst of positions to deal with the crisis when it came.
Gordon Brown saved the world, or at least led the international response. He really did.
Strange, but true. It may have been the only good thing about his Premiership, but it was a biggy.
I've always been struck by the mirror image with Blair, who was generally a good PM with one big catastrophe to his name, Iraq.
Its not true. Brown was spending far too much money and relying on the city dividend. When that failed we were stuffed.. He had no idea about guarding the nations finances. Like every Labour Govt it end in tears, but that one ended in rivers of tears for everyone,.
First, you are talking about the years before the crisis which are irrelevant to Brown having led the international response to the crisis.
Second, what you claim is wrong anyway. By international or by historical comparison, pre-crisis spending was not excessive or even remarkable. This is no doubt why the Conservative Opposition felt able to commit to matching Labour's spending plans. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6975536.stm
Gordon, give it a rest. You convince nobody, no matter how many times you trot it out...
Do you accept the Tories were committed to the same spending levels as Brown or is that inconvenient truth now "fake news"?
LOL and he was not at any briefings over the last 3 years where this was mentioned , utter bollocks. They are now setting up his U turn assuming the plebs are stupid.
Given their relative bulk prioritising those things inter se is unnecessary and meaningless. If you go to town to pick up the week's food shop, a prescription and a spare wooden leg, no one of the three errands restricts your ability to do the other two, unless I suppose you drive a Smart car. Nice attempt to make our flesh creep, but no cigar. And a paradigm case of the drunk driver's fallacy.
LOL and he was not at any briefings over the last 3 years where this was mentioned , utter bollocks. They are now setting up his U turn assuming the plebs are stupid.
I'm sure I read almost word for word the same story 8-9 months ago explaining Gove's support for the Withdrawal Agreement and opposition to no deal. Make of that what you will...
Yes, they just assume people button up the back, though history and the fact that these useless twats are where they are do encourage them that lots are really easily taken in.
Not shameful. It's not easy for young male jounalists to climb up the greasy poll of right wing journalism like Oakeshott. They are missing an important piece of equiptment
Classy as always.
You can do better than that! One of your Guidophile colleagues called me the lowest form of pond life the other day. I'd have given him a 'like' if he's made it up himself.
'lowest form of pond life' I've heard before, but 'Guidophile': now, that is good!
Apologies, but i'm still struggling to understand the attraction (to leavers). During the transition we are subject to the ultimate BINO (without any decision making powers). More than any other option (Norway, Switzerland, Unicornia). Why is that preferable to entering the backstop (which, with the exception of the Customs Union) meets pretty much every key red line that leavers wanted? Not subject to the ECJ, control of immigration, end to permanent ongoing payments into the EU, some others...
I'm not sure the Backstop is anything other than a backstop. In other words it's there in case all else fails. The unacceptable implication is that the UK will be tied permanently into EU structures without any formal or real say.
Nevertheless it allows Bozo to tick Brexif off as done without having to face any of the difficult or damaging bits. A result for him, I'd say. Especially since he never wanted leave to win in the first place.
The one quibble I might have is the suggestion that our economy is faltering. The rate of growth has reduced but I think that we have had a pretty good run and we probably have a bit to go before international pressures drive us to anything like a recession. Europe is slowing again which is a potential problem for us, Brexit or no Brexit. Trump is desperate to keep his bubble going until his re-election but looks to be struggling. I think that he is learning that his bull in a china shop attitude to trade is not working and damaging his own prospects (the most important thing) but who knows. And now we have Iran.
My critique of her government on the economy is that the useless passivity of Hammond has done very little to address our structural problems other than the deficit. We have not had the infrastructure spending we need, we have not addressed our appalling savings rate with the result we continue to run a very high deficit, our problems with productivity have got worse on the back of very little incentive to invest, we have created a major headache going forward by not addressing the ever increasing problem of student debt, he has done nothing to simplify our ridiculous tax code and address its patent deficiencies by which investment income is taxed more lightly than earned income. Hammond really should have been moved on some time ago and I will be glad to see him gone.
To be fair, David, you are quite unusual in believing Brexit is no biggie. For many others, rolling-out long-term economic policies at a time of deep uncertainty may not have been the wisest move. Committing to large-scale structural change when you have no idea at all about how the next few years are going to pan out in terms of trade, inward investment, etc, is not a very Conservative thing to do. Hammond has not tied his successor’s hands, so the government retains a level of flexibility. Given where we are, that is a small mercy.
The Conservative spending plans that Labour followed for two years were absurdly tight - I think Ken Clarke admitted he would have not followed them if they had won in 1997. Labour's fiscal policies after 1999 (that the Tories said they'd match) were not a significant contributor to the crisis. Lax regulation of the City (that the Tories criticised for not being lax enough) was a bigger contributor. A US-centred global recession, caused by the failure of Lehman Bros, years of too dovish Fed policy, and an unsustainable housing and construction boom in the US and elsewhere, assisted by a whole load of lax underwriting standards in the US mortgage market, was the reason. The failure from a UK fiscal policy point of view was not to envisage that after the boom was over tax revenues would be lower, but that was a failure of Economic planning, I have no doubt that the Tories would have made the same mistake (like they did in the late eighties). Fiscal policy during 2010-15 made more mistakes than Brown did, IMO. Way too tight, and ultimately largely counterproductive.
All correct and to which I would add - the madness in the wholesale credit markets, the crazy proliferation of derivative structures, the explosion in value and volumes, the abdication from any semblance of prudent risk management.
Root cause being the venal bonus culture on Wall St and in its slavish imitator, the City of London.
An example -
US person takes a mortgage to buy a house. Thousands of these bundled up into a mortgage backed security. That is a DERIVATIVE. It is tradeable.
Worried about the bond defaulting? OK, buy a Credit Default Swap (CDS). It pays out in that event. The CDS itself is tradeable. It is a DERIVATIVE on a DERIVATIVE.
Seller of the CDS (e.g. the notorious AIG) earns an income stream from the premiums charged for the CDS. Insurance basically. Want to get hold of the future income now? OK! Securitize the future cashflow and turn it into yet another bond. Being now a DERIVATIVE on a DERIVATIVE on a DERIVATIVE. And - you guessed it - it is tradeable.
Net result - $1 of US housing loan ends up as $X of total asset/liability exposure, where X is a very big number indeed, scattered across many books, players, markets, locations.
Whole system is poisoned - so when those mortgage dollars start to default the entire banking sector has to be bailed out by the only thing big enough to do so - the government, aka ordinary working people.
Utter utter scandal. And the perpetrators got off entirely without consequence. Everybody else paid - and is still paying and will continue to do so for quite some time yet.
There ought to have been a riot. If people truly understood what happened there would have been.
Boris is offering jobs like dodgy tickets touts with fake tickets for the same handful seats.
It looks like various wannabe cabinet ministers are briefing the STimes that they have been promised X,Y,Z. Trying to bounce Boris and his kitchen cabinet.
Pathetic.
Which in itself is telling. They wouldn't dare do such a thing if they didn't know full well that he is in the weakest position of an incoming PM for many a year. Usually, attempting to manipulate the new big cheese is a one way express ticket to the back benches.
Except Boris will do the biggest reshuffle since Macmillan's night of the Long Knives, out goes Hammond, Stewart, Gauke, Stride, Fox, Smith, Bradley, Wright, Clark, Hinds, Liddington, Lewis, most likely Grayling too, in comes Cleverly, McVey, Patel, IDS, Raab, Jo Johnson, Fallon, Kwarteng, Rees-Mogg, Goldsmith, Williamson, Conor Burns, McVey, Jake Berry and John Whittingdale, Braverman and Mercer and maybe Davis
An increase of five?
What a bunch of tossers the dregs of the conservative party
That's yet another problem for the Tories: "is there no beginning to their talents?"
Theresa May was sincere - for which she got quite a lot of respect in the country at large- but equally she was no fun and lacked critical people and strategic skills.
In the HYFUD world of deluded Torydom, Boris will replace the few remaining grown ups with these shop soiled white hopes which he believes will rescue the party from obliteration in one Brexit appeasing bound.
Um, not quite.
In the country at large, Boris is already wilting under a chorus of derision. JRM and Gove are widely loathed, IDS and DD seen as stupid and useless, Raab and Williamson nasty and lightweight, Fallon a crusty old sex pest, McVey a screechy media bitch and so on... These are genuinely already some of the most disliked people in the UK today.
Still at least Boris can spread the blame when his government utterly implodes in about three months.
The ConHome podcast tips Patel for a very big job, on the basis that Bozo needs to be seen to appoint leavers, women and ethnic minorities, and she is all three. No mention of any talent.
Morning Consult is tracking Trump approval/disapproval on a state-by-state basis.
There are some surprisingly strong results in there for Trump, like Virginia and Delaware from the Blue column looking like possible pickups and, with Arizona and Nevada looking like 50/50 shots.
More worrying for him is the "rust belt" and Iowa. Wisconsin, which he edged in 2016, is showing -16. Michigan, another close win, is -15. Iowa, which he won comfortably is -12.
This could be a key resource looking at next year's election.
Trump +24% net approval in Alabama, +18% in Mississippi and +19% in West Virginia but -29% in California and -24% in New York and -26% in Massachusetts, the US divide in one
The old racist States supporting an old racist President. A real shame that one man can bring such opprobrium to a country of that size. This place is full of Americans at the moment but I can't see one with a peaked cap round the wrong way without picturing a chanting racist.
Which says everything about you and nothing about Americans.
LOL and he was not at any briefings over the last 3 years where this was mentioned , utter bollocks. They are now setting up his U turn assuming the plebs are stupid.
Given their relative bulk prioritising those things inter se is unnecessary and meaningless. If you go to town to pick up the week's food shop, a prescription and a spare wooden leg, no one of the three errands restricts your ability to do the other two, unless I suppose you drive a Smart car. Nice attempt to make our flesh creep, but no cigar. And a paradigm case of the drunk driver's fallacy.
Not quite. If the road's closed, you could make the ten mile hike across the fields. You might do that to get your life preserving prescription, not least because it's easy to carry, but not bother with your weekly shop.
Civil servants are preparing specific transport for medicines while largely allowing food deliveries to look after themselves. That reflects their priorities.
The Conservative spending plans that Labour followed for two years were absurdly tight - I think Ken Clarke admitted he would have not followed them if they had won in 1997. Labour's fiscal policies after 1999 (that the Tories said they'd match) were not a significant contributor to the crisis. Lax regulation of the City (that the Tories criticised for not being lax enough) was a bigger contributor. A US-centred global recession, caused by the failure of Lehman Bros, years of too dovish Fed policy, and an unsustainable housing and construction boom in the US and elsewhere, assisted by a whole load of lax underwriting standards in the US mortgage market, was the reason. The failure from a UK fiscal policy point of view was not to envisage that after the boom was over tax revenues would be lower, but that was a failure of Economic planning, I have no doubt that the Tories would have made the same mistake (like they did in the late eighties). Fiscal policy during 2010-15 made more mistakes than Brown did, IMO. Way too tight, and ultimately largely counterproductive.
You do know that the UK was in recession six months before the failure of Lehman ?
Perhaps the near trillion quid of household borrowing which happened during the Brown years might not have been sustainable.
The Conservative spending plans that Labour followed for two years were absurdly tight - I think Ken Clarke admitted he would have not followed them if they had won in 1997. Labour's fiscal policies after 1999 (that the Tories said they'd match) were not a significant contributor to the crisis. Lax regulation of the City (that the Tories criticised for not being lax enough) was a bigger contributor. A US-centred global recession, caused by the failure of Lehman Bros, years of too dovish Fed policy, and an unsustainable housing and construction boom in the US and elsewhere, assisted by a whole load of lax underwriting standards in the US mortgage market, was the reason. The failure from a UK fiscal policy point of view was not to envisage that after the boom was over tax revenues would be lower, but that was a failure of Economic planning, I have no doubt that the Tories would have made the same mistake (like they did in the late eighties). Fiscal policy during 2010-15 made more mistakes than Brown did, IMO. Way too tight, and ultimately largely counterproductive.
You do know that the UK was in recession six months before the failure of Lehman ?
Perhaps the near trillion quid of household borrowing which happened during the Brown years might not have been sustainable.
As I mentioned, too lax global monetary policy was certainly part of the problem. The US was also in recession before Lehman, but that made it much much worse.
Morning Consult is tracking Trump approval/disapproval on a state-by-state basis.
There are some surprisingly strong results in there for Trump, like Virginia and Delaware from the Blue column looking like possible pickups and, with Arizona and Nevada looking like 50/50 shots.
More worrying for him is the "rust belt" and Iowa. Wisconsin, which he edged in 2016, is showing -16. Michigan, another close win, is -15. Iowa, which he won comfortably is -12.
This could be a key resource looking at next year's election.
Trump +24% net approval in Alabama, +18% in Mississippi and +19% in West Virginia but -29% in California and -24% in New York and -26% in Massachusetts, the US divide in one
The old racist States supporting an old racist President. A real shame that one man can bring such opprobrium to a country of that size. This place is full of Americans at the moment but I can't see one with a peaked cap round the wrong way without picturing a chanting racist.
Which says everything about you and nothing about Americans.
Roger always exaggerates for effect but once we out of the EU a lot of people are concerned about the extent we become America's poodle, and Trump's in particular if we are desperate for a trade deal.
Putting the actual policies aside has there ever been anyone who has so demeaned the office of President of the United States in the way Trump has? I can't think of any modern POTUS that comes anywhere close, Nixon possibly during the Watergate years. Perhaps it's just a sign of the times and I am getting on but it is not a healthy development.
Morning Consult is tracking Trump approval/disapproval on a state-by-state basis.
There are some surprisingly strong results in there for Trump, like Virginia and Delaware from the Blue column looking like possible pickups and, with Arizona and Nevada looking like 50/50 shots.
More worrying for him is the "rust belt" and Iowa. Wisconsin, which he edged in 2016, is showing -16. Michigan, another close win, is -15. Iowa, which he won comfortably is -12.
This could be a key resource looking at next year's election.
Trump +24% net approval in Alabama, +18% in Mississippi and +19% in West Virginia but -29% in California and -24% in New York and -26% in Massachusetts, the US divide in one
The old racist States supporting an old racist President. A real shame that one man can bring such opprobrium to a country of that size. This place is full of Americans at the moment but I can't see one with a peaked cap round the wrong way without picturing a chanting racist.
Which says everything about you and nothing about Americans.
Roger always exaggerates for effect but once we out of the EU a lot of people are concerned about the extent we become America's poodle, and Trump's in particular if we are desperate for a trade deal.
Putting the actual policies aside has there ever been anyone who has so demeaned the office of President of the United States in the way Trump has? I can't think of any modern POTUS that comes anywhere close, Nixon possibly during the Watergate years but he remained essentially civil in public at least. Perhaps it's just a sign of the times and I am getting on but it is not a healthy development.
The ConHome podcast tips Patel for a very big job, on the basis that Bozo needs to be seen to appoint leavers, women and ethnic minorities, and she is all three. No mention of any talent.
I've been making the same point on pb. Boris is vulnerable to the same sort of attacks made against Corbyn and Labour for antisemitism. Attacks that have been very successful in political terms: Labour is in disarray and Corbyn's polling has plummeted. It is worse with Boris because the direct quotes are there. Boris needs to show he is not a racist misogynist.
That said, Boris needs also to appoint Remainers and not split the party. The leaked lists cannot be taken seriously.
US person takes a mortgage to buy a house. Thousands of these bundled up into a mortgage backed security. That is a DERIVATIVE. It is tradeable.
That's not a derivative.
Technically you're right, in the sense that you actually own a stake in the underlying product, but it doesn't really affect the point he's making.
If you instead use a definition of something like "second order asset whose price is dependent on the price of the asset it's based on", which is wrong, but I think usefully wrong, then you can include MBSs. I think CDOs are in either way.
IDS on Marr says the Trump administration had offered US assets to protect British shipping in the Middle East and questions must be asked of the British government as to why the offer was not taken up
Let's imagine Boris is scared off a no deal, and ends up winning the contest to be PM (both eminently possible).
What's he do?
Could try and get the deal with cosmetic differences through (it's not Theresa May's Terrible Deal, it's Boris Johnson's Lisbon Deal. Totally different. Look, they even changed the font).
Does that get Remainers/Labour to back it?
Probably not.
So then what? Leave with no deal? Referendum 2, choice being between the Deal and Remain? Potentially. But a gutsy move for a man who chose to hide under a table in Afghanistan rather than resign over a runway (though he'd have more to lose/gain in this scenario than the past).
General Election? What for? Unless he can win significantly, and a pre-departure GE having attempted to get the deal through again, would lose Boris his apparent advantage of being tough on leaving, with BP gobbling up votes aplenty. I imagine the Lib Dems would do very well but it wouldn't help the Conservatives.
Straight revocation? Can't see it.
Good summary. The alternatives so unappealing I can see another extension coming along, on the grounds that Boris just knows he can get a great deal, but with no EU Commission In place they can’t do it on their own deadline, which was always a EU date, not our choice or idea etc etc
Boris wont be scared off no deal. He gave himself no wriggle room and if he slips on the exit day he will discover his bumbling charm will not work on the BXP backers he promised we would be out. He could be told we will all die and hed go for no deal, his premiership demands it.
If he tries and parliament prevents him maybe he can avoid too much punishment for missing deadline.
The Conservative spending plans that Labour followed for two years were absurdly tight - I think Ken Clarke admitted he would have not followed them if they had won in 1997. Labour's fiscal policies after 1999 (that the Tories said they'd match) were not a significant contributor to the crisis. Lax regulation of the City (that the Tories criticised for not being lax enough) was a bigger contributor. A US-centred global recession, caused by the failure of Lehman Bros, years of too dovish Fed policy, and an unsustainable housing and construction boom in the US and elsewhere, assisted by a whole load of lax underwriting standards in the US mortgage market, was the reason. The failure from a UK fiscal policy point of view was not to envisage that after the boom was over tax revenues would be lower, but that was a failure of Economic planning, I have no doubt that the Tories would have made the same mistake (like they did in the late eighties). Fiscal policy during 2010-15 made more mistakes than Brown did, IMO. Way too tight, and ultimately largely counterproductive.
You do know that the UK was in recession six months before the failure of Lehman ?
Perhaps the near trillion quid of household borrowing which happened during the Brown years might not have been sustainable.
As I mentioned, too lax global monetary policy was certainly part of the problem. The US was also in recession before Lehman, but that made it much much worse.
This is entirely missing the point. Lehman (and Bear Stearns before it) failed because of plunging house prices caused by people defaulting on their mortgages, which occurred due to then losing their jobs due to the economic dip. That in turn wiped out the value on the MBSs Lehman was holding, which pushed them into bankruptcy. The recession was necessary in order to cause the credit crisis, never the other way round.
But enough semantics. A more interesting question is whether the American government, if it had bailed out Lehman Brothers, might have prevented the liquidity crisis, in the same way our government stepped in to guarantee all deposits and end the run on Northern Rock. If lenders had not been scared off, perhaps the interlocking cog-wheels of the interbank derivatives markets might not have seized up.
Comments
That could happen. But it prolongs rather than resolves the problem.
The BXP fingerprints are there in the article.
An honest or even a competent PM would have explained to the Public that things were going to be difficult if the Referendum result was going to be respected, and outlined the options. It would have then pursued the politically feasible options, reaching out to whatever Parties or blocs were willing and able to give their support.
What actually happened we all know about.
I think he might do the referendum. He'd look shameless, bold and audacious, which he would enjoy. He could announce it with a grand optimistic thing about how Leave won before and Leave will win again, and it would show the whingers and remoaners and make them STFU for a generation. If he wins it he wins, and if he loses he's in the post-Indy SNP seat, the spiritual leader of the defeated tribe, which is probably where he intended to be before rather carelessly winning the previous one.
Good article by @AlastairMeeks. Brutal but accurate.
Off topic, why for the love of God is the taxpayer paying for the furniture of a man who earned several hundred thousand pounds last year. Why can’t the fat git buy his own bloody bed and mattress?
The thing is he has to do something.
Will he be able to renogiate the WA? That's highly unlikely, he may get a new form of words but that won't fool many anybody. It certainly won't fool the DUP and they could withdraw support.
If he crashes out with No Deal he still has to have some sort of deal in order to trade with the EU, WTO won't do for long and the electorate will see how bad it is pretty quickly. So leaving with No Deal isn't an end in itself, it just continues the problem but from a worse position.
He will however be Prime Minister. Would he want to become a short-lived PM, as is a distinct possibility if he called a GE? Maybe he'll risk that.
So, perhaps a new referendum would be his best bet. If the rsult is again to Leave we'd all be back where we were again. However if the result is to Remain, then Boris could continue being PM with DUP support plus a couple of returners from ChangeUK. If the result was a decisive win for Remain, he could get a relief bounce. The Tories could even win in 2022.
And best wishes to Nick too.
I think Boris will try to renegotiate the Deal, fail and then rather publicly refuse to rule out No Deal. Parliament will then VONC him and he can say he tried but was bounced out by Treacherous MPs.
What happens after a VONC is hard to predict. So is Boris.
Uncertain times.
Admiralty House was a different proposition. The rent charged for some of London’s finest rooms was only £500 a year, but the First Lord was expected to meet the wages of twelve servants, seven more than the Churchills employed at Eccleston Square. Making calculations on Admiralty notepaper, Churchill decided that he could not afford the move.
Lough, David. No More Champagne: Churchill and his Money.
It’s a get out of jail free card for Boris, and though it provides non-trivial chances of No Deal and/or the destruction of the Tory Party, it maximises his chances of survival.
I think it wins, but what then? Maybe a temporary Govt/PM and a GE? Maybe the EU allows an extension for this? Maybe the GE resolves matters one way or the other?
Lot of Maybes.
GE Spring 2020.
Edit/ obviously that would be a plan, but one that might fail at various points. As before, it probably hangs on the ERG. They’d know for sure it is last chance saloon.
Of course. He dropping rapidly down the list of “worst PMs”. Give it a couple more years and he could be mid table!
https://twitter.com/maitlis/status/1152813414424678400?s=21
It's well documented in Nate Silver's book The Signal and the Noise, and also covered in Andrew Rawnesley's tome The End Of The Party.
Both books are well worth a read for reasons well beyond their coverage of the Financial Crisis.
No, I don't know why either.
https://caitygt.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/donald-trump.jpg?w=480&h=363
I think Gove would have done a better job (with Brexit) because he wouldn't have had the same red lines (especially on FoM).
I'm not especially bothered by that, so long as they don't then treat people on benefits at the bottom of the ladder with lofty disdain. For instance, people who go to great lengths to avoid paying tax are in my view not entitled to sneer at people who claim disability benefits with marginally debatable disabilities. It's exactly the same "take what you can get" attitude, with considerably less justification.
Leadsom and Boris might have made more attempt to forge a consensus, and reach out to opponents where necessary.
Gove would have been just as bad as May. Both nail their colours to the mast; neither compromises; both subscribe to the Brian Clough dictum: we sit down and discuss it over a cup of tea, then we agree I was right. He might not have called a snap election, I suppose.
Gove is an interesting one. He MIGHT have done a better job. That comes with heroic assumptions about his lack of preconditions, however. He is an extremely unpopular politician and he has a track record of being an unsafe pair of hands.
My critique of her government on the economy is that the useless passivity of Hammond has done very little to address our structural problems other than the deficit. We have not had the infrastructure spending we need, we have not addressed our appalling savings rate with the result we continue to run a very high deficit, our problems with productivity have got worse on the back of very little incentive to invest, we have created a major headache going forward by not addressing the ever increasing problem of student debt, he has done nothing to simplify our ridiculous tax code and address its patent deficiencies by which investment income is taxed more lightly than earned income. Hammond really should have been moved on some time ago and I will be glad to see him gone.
The point I am making is that it is simplistic to say fiscal policy was terrible before 2010 and great afterwards. Mistakes were made in both cases. I would argue that the mistake pre 2010 was in the assessment of the economy (not realising it was in a boom not a steady state and so running to large a deficit for that point in the cycle), whereas the mistake post 2010 was purely fiscal (too much austerity).
Root cause being the venal bonus culture on Wall St and in its slavish imitator, the City of London.
An example -
US person takes a mortgage to buy a house. Thousands of these bundled up into a mortgage backed security. That is a DERIVATIVE. It is tradeable.
Worried about the bond defaulting? OK, buy a Credit Default Swap (CDS). It pays out in that event. The CDS itself is tradeable. It is a DERIVATIVE on a DERIVATIVE.
Seller of the CDS (e.g. the notorious AIG) earns an income stream from the premiums charged for the CDS. Insurance basically. Want to get hold of the future income now? OK! Securitize the future cashflow and turn it into yet another bond. Being now a DERIVATIVE on a DERIVATIVE on a DERIVATIVE. And - you guessed it - it is tradeable.
Net result - $1 of US housing loan ends up as $X of total asset/liability exposure, where X is a very big number indeed, scattered across many books, players, markets, locations.
Whole system is poisoned - so when those mortgage dollars start to default the entire banking sector has to be bailed out by the only thing big enough to do so - the government, aka ordinary working people.
Utter utter scandal. And the perpetrators got off entirely without consequence. Everybody else paid - and is still paying and will continue to do so for quite some time yet.
There ought to have been a riot. If people truly understood what happened there would have been.
Civil servants are preparing specific transport for medicines while largely allowing food deliveries to look after themselves. That reflects their priorities.
I have more time for Mrs May than the Header - but no, not one of the greats, to put it kindly.
Biggest mistake, calling (and losing) the election. If she had not done that, I think she could have delivered Brexit.
Perhaps the near trillion quid of household borrowing which happened during the Brown years might not have been sustainable.
Putting the actual policies aside has there ever been anyone who has so demeaned the office of President of the United States in the way Trump has? I can't think of any modern POTUS that comes anywhere close, Nixon possibly during the Watergate years. Perhaps it's just a sign of the times and I am getting on but it is not a healthy development.
That said, Boris needs also to appoint Remainers and not split the party. The leaked lists cannot be taken seriously.
If you instead use a definition of something like "second order asset whose price is dependent on the price of the asset it's based on", which is wrong, but I think usefully wrong, then you can include MBSs. I think CDOs are in either way.
If he tries and parliament prevents him maybe he can avoid too much punishment for missing deadline.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7268519/STEVEN-EDGINTON-19-journalist-exposed-memos-UKs-man-Washington.html
For instance:
https://www.thebalance.com/role-of-derivatives-in-creating-mortgage-crisis-3970477
But enough semantics. A more interesting question is whether the American government, if it had bailed out Lehman Brothers, might have prevented the liquidity crisis, in the same way our government stepped in to guarantee all deposits and end the run on Northern Rock. If lenders had not been scared off, perhaps the interlocking cog-wheels of the interbank derivatives markets might not have seized up.
Edit - After May's last PMQ's on Wednesday.