Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
Are you really saying that India with twenty times the UK population might at some point have a GDP equal to the UK's ?
As long as I can remember we've been hearing that UK GDP has been surpassed by France (multiple times), Italy, Brazil and India.
For that matter Stuart Dickson predicts Poland will imminently surpass from the UK.
The key is that the key to getting into Government and sustaining yourself is to want to actually do things. Simply opposing is never a manifesto for Government, and in that the Conservatives are currently at a massive advantage. To be fair, under the surface, the likes of McDonnell are trying to focus on what Labour would do - but it doesn't get much airtime, and much of it is an anaethema to the electorate.
The Saj's Stamp Duty proposal appears to be targeted quite explicitly at people who will never vote Tory, while pissing off vast swathes of traditional Tory voters.
Another tax owning your own home seems almost as voter friendly as the Dementia Tax.
So only the Scots break in favour of Corbyn, while even Labour London is split down the middle. In the rest of the country a clear majority (or (just) plurality in the North) in favour of No Deal Brexit + No Corbyn vs the alternative.
Which all the media and political criticism of Swinson misses. Corbyn is not just unacceptable to Parliament, he is utterly unacceptable to the country.
If put him below any alternative figure from labour. I know the idea he brings some Tory rebels on board and being respected on the EU front not put off too many in labour but the plan is to stop Brexit and hes willing to contemplate brexit so is immediately not worth it for the anti no dealers, who are actually mostly anti Brexiters less flexible than him.
Clark would have to resign from the Tory Party first. It doesn't make sense for him to lead when his party have a leader. It looks too confected. It either has to be a party leader or someone unaligned who can form a sensible voting coalition.
Has anyone considered that for once in his miserable life Corbyn played a blinder last week, and Ms. Swinson walked into the trap?
Why would Corbyn want to go anywhere near Brexit when, Johnson having painted himself into a corner, could well make a horlicks of the whole issue without any help from Jezza? He has however made a (hollow?) gesture that he could use, in future, as a fig leaf when questioned as to why he didn't do more to prevent no deal. He can finger-point in that event at both Mr Johnson and Ms Swinson.
PB Tories are convinced Corbyn will do anything to become PM and impose his style of Soviet government on us. Did he too have a childhood dream to become 'World King'? I suspect not, he is far too lazy and the thought of actually doing anything (positive or negative) would fill him with dread. Let's face it he has done exactly zip as LOTO, other than to alienate pink Tories on the right of his party. Besides, why get involved with saving Brexit when, if it all unravels Corbyn is the one in the driving seat to deliver his Soviet dream with minimal effort.
We will leave on 31st October without a deal. What happens after that is anyone's guess. It could be unicorns gently grazing the sunlit uplands, or it could be martial law, or more likely something moderately unpleasant inbetween.
Corbyn did indeed get the political tactics spot on, and Swinson fell into the trap. To enough of the public it seems that he tried to stop Brexit, was blocked by the LDs and didnt have enough support. Whilst the reality is different perceptions matter.
Corbyn doesnt care much about Brexit either way, and almost certainly welcomes a Tory led no deal which is one of the very few scenarios that could create a parliamentary majority for a radical Corbyn govt. As he doesnt think there is much difference between a traditional Labour govt and Tory govt, the only destination he cares about is eventually getting a radical left govt.
If the country suffers greatly to get there it is irrelevant as it is the promised land. Virtually the same demented thought process as those wanting Brexit at any cost.
There is no polling evidence yet to back your assertions.
I know this forum has some extremely polling led posters but it is perfectly possible, one might even say desirable, to form some opinions without polling. Most of my post is based on my observations of what the LOTO has said and how he has acted.
Yet you refer to 'enough of the public' - your assertion is based soley on your view without a shred of evidence beyond that. I'm glad we agree. I will await for something more than your opinion before making any assertion.
The danger for Remainer parties is expectations are set too high that they can stop it. The job now is about how to deal with the mess. Being right about something isn't a reward.
Has anyone considered that for once in his miserable life Corbyn played a blinder last week, and Ms. Swinson walked into the trap?
PB Tories are convinced Corbyn will do anything to become PM and impose his style of Soviet government on us. Did he too have a childhood dream to become 'World King'? I suspect not, he is far too lazy and the thought of actually doing anything (positive or negative) would fill him with dread. Let's face it he has done exactly zip as LOTO, other than to alienate pink Tories on the right of his party. Besides, why get involved with saving Brexit when, if it all unravels Corbyn is the one in the driving seat to deliver his Soviet dream with minimal effort.
We will leave on 31st October without a deal. What happens after that is anyone's guess. It could be unicorns gently grazing the sunlit uplands, or it could be martial law, or more likely something moderately unpleasant inbetween.
Corbyn did indeed get the political tactics spot on, and Swinson fell into the trap. To enough of the public it seems that he tried to stop Brexit, was blocked by the LDs and didnt have enough support. Whilst the reality is different perceptions matter.
Corbyn doesnt care much about Brexit either way, and almost certainly welcomes a Tory led no deal which is one of the very few scenarios that could create a parliamentary majority for a radical Corbyn govt. As he doesnt think there is much difference between a traditional Labour govt and Tory govt, the only destination he cares about is eventually getting a radical left govt.
If the country suffers greatly to get there it is irrelevant as it is the promised land. Virtually the same demented thought process as those wanting Brexit at any cost.
There is no polling evidence yet to back your assertions.
If the question were asked today, Ms Swinson I suspect would be widely supported over Comrade Corbyn. If the same question were asked post- untidy Brexit the answer may well be different.
Anyone who has studied Corbyn will note his short game is poor but he plays a less inept long game.
So only the Scots break in favour of Corbyn, while even Labour London is split down the middle. In the rest of the country a clear majority (or (just) plurality in the North) in favour of No Deal Brexit + No Corbyn vs the alternative.
Back to Swinson's response, whilst the best reply might have been to say we prefer other candidates but if you have 10 Tory votes and the Tiggers we will support you, an alternative far more aggressive rejection could have worked as well.
If she had painted Corbyn as pro Brexit, this being yet another sham attempt rather than a serious plan, and tried to internally isolate him by offering to work with members of his cabinet, Starmer, Thornberry, Watson perhaps even McDonell, rather than Harman or Clarke, she would have scored serious political capital vs Labour.
Instead the passive rejection, just leads to her looking weak, reminding everyone she only has a few MPs, and allowing Corbyn to convince some of the less politically engaged that he has tried his best to stop Brexit but was blocked by the LDs (sadly still seen as the tory helpers to many lefty remainers).
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
Are you really saying that India with twenty times the UK population might at some point have a GDP equal to the UK's ?
As long as I can remember we've been hearing that UK GDP has been surpassed by France (multiple times), Italy, Brazil and India.
For that matter Stuart Dickson predicts Poland will imminently surpass from the UK.
The key is that the key to getting into Government and sustaining yourself is to want to actually do things. Simply opposing is never a manifesto for Government, and in that the Conservatives are currently at a massive advantage. To be fair, under the surface, the likes of McDonnell are trying to focus on what Labour would do - but it doesn't get much airtime, and much of it is an anaethema to the electorate.
The Saj's Stamp Duty proposal appears to be targeted quite explicitly at people who will never vote Tory, while pissing off vast swathes of traditional Tory voters.
Another tax owning your own home seems almost as voter friendly as the Dementia Tax.
How on earth is switching the tax to sellers, a tax on "owning" your own home?
And anyone selling to buy, simply gets the "benefit" on their subsequent purchase.
Yeah Mr Palmer - truth is , by your own admission you and many of your colleagues who tacitly supported Blair while always quietly hoping for extreme socialism in the future. There is no good reason why anyone should believe a word you say on this or any other matter
Eh? I don't see why my being candid about my own views (which I always shared as an MP too - I was open about being a former Communist, for instance, without any particular need to mention it) should mean that you can't rely on what I say being true - rather the contrary. You might not agree with it, but that's something else.
Has anyone considered that for once in his miserable life Corbyn played a blinder last week, and Ms. Swinson walked into the trap?
Why would Corbyn want to go anywhere near Brexit when, Johnson having painted himself into a corner, could well make a horlicks of the whole issue without any help from Jezza? He has however made a (hollow?) gesture that he could use, in future, as a fig leaf when questioned as to why he didn't do more to prevent no deal. He can finger-point in that event at both Mr Johnson and Ms Swinson.
We will leave on 31st October without a deal. What happens after that is anyone's guess. It could be unicorns gently grazing the sunlit uplands, or it could be martial law, or more likely something moderately unpleasant inbetween.
Corbyn did indeed get the political tactics spot on, and Swinson fell into the trap. To enough of the public it seems that he tried to stop Brexit, was blocked by the LDs and didnt have enough support. Whilst the reality is different perceptions matter.
Corbyn doesnt care much about Brexit either way, and almost certainly welcomes a Tory led no deal which is one of the very few scenarios that could create a parliamentary majority for a radical Corbyn govt. As he doesnt think there is much difference between a traditional Labour govt and Tory govt, the only destination he cares about is eventually getting a radical left govt.
If the country suffers greatly to get there it is irrelevant as it is the promised land. Virtually the same demented thought process as those wanting Brexit at any cost.
There is no polling evidence yet to back your assertions.
I know this forum has some extremely polling led posters but it is perfectly possible, one might even say desirable, to form some opinions without polling. Most of my post is based on my observations of what the LOTO has said and how he has acted.
Yet you refer to 'enough of the public' - your assertion is based soley on your view without a shred of evidence beyond that. I'm glad we agree. I will await for something more than your opinion before making any assertion.
Ok, to clarify, I can see "enough of the public" is vague, if you read it as enough of the public to create a Corbyn majority that was not my intention and can see why you might think that a big leap. Enough of the public to keep the status quo in 2019, probably a hung parliament with Labour significantly ahead of the LDs on seats and reasonably ahead on vote % (despite losing ground to them on both compared to 2017).
This would be a very good base for Corbyn if no deal is delivered and a disaster, it is at that stage in 2020 and beyond he could conceivably gain a majority.
Has anyone considered that for once in his miserable life Corbyn played a blinder last week, and Ms. Swinson walked into the trap?
PB Tories are convinced Corbyn will do anything to become PM and impose his style of Soviet government on us. Did he too have a childhood dream to become 'World King'? I suspect not, he is far too lazy and the thought of actually doing anything (positive or negative) would fill him with dread. Let's face it he has done exactly zip as LOTO, other than to alienate pink Tories on the right of his party. Besides, why get involved with saving Brexit when, if it all unravels Corbyn is the one in the driving seat to deliver his Soviet dream with minimal effort.
We will leave on 31st October without a deal. What happens after that is anyone's guess. It could be unicorns gently grazing the sunlit uplands, or it could be martial law, or more likely something moderately unpleasant inbetween.
Corbyn did indeed get the political tactics spot on, and Swinson fell into the trap. To enough of the public it seems that he tried to stop Brexit, was blocked by the LDs and didnt have enough support. Whilst the reality is different perceptions matter.
Corbyn doesnt care much about Brexit either way, and almost certainly welcomes a Tory led no deal which is one of the very few scenarios that could create a parliamentary majority for a radical Corbyn govt. As he doesnt think there is much difference between a traditional Labour govt and Tory govt, the only destination he cares about is eventually getting a radical left govt.
If the country suffers greatly to get there it is irrelevant as it is the promised land. Virtually the same demented thought process as those wanting Brexit at any cost.
There is no polling evidence yet to back your assertions.
If the question were asked today, Ms Swinson I suspect would be widely supported over Comrade Corbyn. If the same question were asked post- untidy Brexit the answer may well be different.
Anyone who has studied Corbyn will note his short game is poor but he plays a less inept long game.
So only the Scots break in favour of Corbyn, while even Labour London is split down the middle. In the rest of the country a clear majority (or (just) plurality in the North) in favour of No Deal Brexit + No Corbyn vs the alternative.
I tried posting this the other day and didn't get much of a reaction but I will try again.
"I'm not saying that there wasn't a democratic mandate for brexit at the time. I'm just saying that if I narrowly decided to order fish in a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I've been waiting 3 hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish have quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it is cooked or not, or indeed still alive,and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no one was paying any attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted fish."
Its gone (trying to sound modern) viral. An MSP said to me yesterday that it was the first and only thing that he had read that made him wonder if there should be a second vote. Not quite there myself but it makes the remainer argument better than anything else I have seen.
Interesting piece. I think there a few problems with it.
1) David calls the temporary government TANDA, when as any fule noe the correct technical term is GoNAfaE.
2) Why assume the VONC happens at the beginning of September? Shorely the whole operation is much easier to bring off after it goes right up to the wire, when the fact that there's no renegotiation is obvious to everyone, and everybody's properly freaking about about the fact that nobody knows how they're going to do business next week.
3) This:
And if there were to then be an election, wouldn’t the public be being given much the same choices that parliament had themselves rejected – unless there was a major realignment in the parties?
Yes! That's the whole point! Parliament has several different factions, they can't agree on anything, so you need a new parliament. And TBF, once you remove the Remainer Tories and Lab MPs run on a new manifesto, I think you do actually have two coherent options: * The Tories and BXP want to crash out with No Deal * LD want to ??? then referendum, Lab want to renegotiate without TMay's red lines then referendum, which also handily fills in the LD's ???.
Jo Swinson may have been right or wrong but she was certainly naive. I'd imagine she and LibDem HQ will spend the next few weeks war-gaming replies to bleeding obvious questions.
I see that Carrie Symonds has 'shared a platform' with Chris Packham. This clearly means that she is fully aligned with all of his political views, his taste in music and his dislike of cats.
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
One of the most interesting aspects of the brexit debate is how so many people who have never traded anything in their life and will probably never do in the future as so set on leaving the single market. In my industry which is healthcare the status quo is the single market and we will eventually be part of it again as there is no real alternative. This is well understood in our industry. In the meantime if we temporarily leave it then headquarter and production operations will move into the EU for the sake of simplicity and cost. There will be no movement the other way. The jobs will go with the move and quite possibly many of the skilled staff.
Can the UK survive without a pharma industry? Yes of course the sun will still come up. However we will be a poorer society and our NHS will have less access to new drugs and devices and pay more for them.
I disagree with David in that I don't see that it much matter who is PM for 2-3 months max with no majority. For that reason I think Corbyn should give way if needed and go for a Lab figure who he trusts.
But ultimately to get Ref2, it's pretty obvious that a non-tory govt will be required for a reasonably long period (minimum 6 months).
Unless the Lib Dems do spectacularly well in the next GE, that govt must be led by Corbyn.
So at some point the other parties are going to have to choose between Corbyn or No Deal.
2) Why assume the VONC happens at the beginning of September? Shorely the whole operation is much easier to bring off after it goes right up to the wire, when the fact that there's no renegotiation is obvious to everyone, and everybody's properly freaking about about the fact that nobody knows how they're going to do business next week.
Exactly. It's pretty clear that DC's comfort zone is growling "I'm mad, bad and dangerous. Try to stop me, if you dare" and running a "Tell them again" election campaign.
The way to mess with his mind is to smile nicely, let him get on with it for a bit, and strike when he has to admit the cupboard is bare sometime in October.
One of the most interesting aspects of the brexit debate is how so many people who have never traded anything in their life and will probably never do in the future as so set on leaving the single market. In my industry which is healthcare the status quo is the single market and we will eventually be part of it again as there is no real alternative. This is well understood in our industry. In the meantime if we temporarily leave it then headquarter and production operations will move into the EU for the sake of simplicity and cost. There will be no movement the other way. The jobs will go with the move and quite possibly many of the skilled staff.
Can the UK survive without a pharma industry? Yes of course the sun will still come up. However we will be a poorer society and our NHS will have less access to new drugs and devices and pay more for them.
British voters are about to learn a very very hard lesson.
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
Surely with the repatriation of £350m a week plus being rid of the suppurating sore of benefit junky Scotia, Wangland will be moving UP the rich list?
I sense David’s frustration at the lack of something clearcut about the long-term future. But the Brexit sands are shifting on an almost daily basis so there’s nothing surprising, or indeed wrong, with a flexible approach. Nor do I accept his premise that there has to be a final goal in place now before stopping the immediate catastrophe of a No Deal exit. That is a non sequitur and fatally flawed.
But perhaps the biggest fault with this piece is the one with which his ‘game through’ (argh what an execrable term) begins. Boris Johnson will not simply ‘resign’ because he sees an extension of A50 coming. That’s a frankly absurd suggestion, not least because under the FTPA it will achieve absolutely nothing. Johnson resigning doesn’t precipitate a General Election. It’s getting wearisome the number of people who have evidently never bothered to read and assimilate the FTPA.
Article 50 will be extended by a Parliament which is implacably opposed to No Deal. The route to this will be legislation. Herdson seems tacitly to accept this in his rather muddled arguments.
That there is not, yet, a clear solution to the future beyond the extension is irrelevant. Yes, we could elect an entirely Remainer Parliament. Yes, we could have a 2nd Referendum. Yes both are solutions. The composition of the post General Election Parliament is a red herring for now.
The immediate task in hand is quite properly to extend Article 50. That’s not ‘kicking the can’. It’s saving the nation from cataclysm.
Cheers. I have read the FtPA, thanks.
If Johnson resigns, someone else - presumably from outside the Tory Party - would have to be appointed PM. That person would very probably not have a majority. Johnson, as the new LotO, could then table a VoNC in him or her. That's the route.
The answer to the riddle is Sylvia Hermon but it'll look better if they spend a month squabbling fractiously and trying all the other names first, then she pops up at the last minute and appeals to everyone to put aside their petty differences and think of the dead children.
Interesting that 23% of Remain voters back No Deal provided it means no Corbyn but only 10% of Leave voters back PM Corbyn and EUref2.
Shows that for almost a quarter of Remain voters stopping Corbyn is the key priority rather than stopping Brexit
Who are presumably mainly Tory remainers, and are the reason why Swinson was right to treat Corbyn PM as a non-starter (even if she can be criticised for the way in which she went about rejecting the idea). The LibDem position is not just about rejecting nodeal Brexit, it is opposing Brexit full stop - and therefore what happens in an election following an extension is very important. The LibDems can clean up with Tory remainers in such an election and probably retain (at a minimum) an immovable block to Brexit. If the Tory remainers believe she will prop up Corbyn as PM then that all goes out of the window. So they have to find another way.
Interesting piece. I think there a few problems with it.
1) David calls the temporary government TANDA, when as any fule noe the correct technical term is GoNAfaE.
2) Why assume the VONC happens at the beginning of September? Shorely the whole operation is much easier to bring off after it goes right up to the wire, when the fact that there's no renegotiation is obvious to everyone, and everybody's properly freaking about about the fact that nobody knows how they're going to do business next week.
3) This:
And if there were to then be an election, wouldn’t the public be being given much the same choices that parliament had themselves rejected – unless there was a major realignment in the parties?
Yes! That's the whole point! Parliament has several different factions, they can't agree on anything, so you need a new parliament. And TBF, once you remove the Remainer Tories and Lab MPs run on a new manifesto, I think you do actually have two coherent options: * The Tories and BXP want to crash out with No Deal * LD want to ??? then referendum, Lab want to renegotiate without TMay's red lines then referendum, which also handily fills in the LD's ???.
If the the Lib Dems don't run under a clear Revoke policy in a pre-Brexit GE, then they're fools.
Labour's policy is a complete mess and includes the possibility of campaigning against their own deal. Note that while they don't want May's red lines, Corbyn does want other unicorny ones of his own. This is not a Remain policy though.
I disagree with David in that I don't see that it much matter who is PM for 2-3 months max with no majority. For that reason I think Corbyn should give way if needed and go for a Lab figure who he trusts.
But ultimately to get Ref2, it's pretty obvious that a non-tory govt will be required for a reasonably long period (minimum 6 months).
Unless the Lib Dems do spectacularly well in the next GE, that govt must be led by Corbyn.
So at some point the other parties are going to have to choose between Corbyn or No Deal.
I think it will be no deal from the response to Corbyn's proposal. They have already chosen that route. So will have to live with the outcome.
How on earth is switching the tax to sellers, a tax on "owning" your own home?
And anyone selling to buy, simply gets the "benefit" on their subsequent purchase.
Can't see it makes much difference in the real world - buyers can afford slightly more, sellers get slightly less, so prices rise slightly. That's how a free market works, and it shouldn't need a leftie like me to tell the Tories that.
With one exception. The only people badly affected are first-time buyers who are currently exempt up to a higher level - they will lose that benefit without sellers getting a compensating gain, so the net effect will be a small revenue gain for the Treasury at the expense of young buyers.
Interesting that 23% of Remain voters back No Deal provided it means no Corbyn but only 10% of Leave voters back PM Corbyn and EUref2.
Shows that for almost a quarter of Remain voters stopping Corbyn is the key priority rather than stopping Brexit
Who are presumably mainly Tory remainers, and are the reason why Swinson was right to treat Corbyn PM as a non-starter (even if she can be criticised for the way in which she went about rejecting the idea). The LibDem position is not just about rejecting nodeal Brexit, it is opposing Brexit full stop - and therefore what happens in an election following an extension is very important. The LibDems can clean up with Tory remainers in such an election and probably retain (at a minimum) an immovable block to Brexit. If the Tory remainers believe she will prop up Corbyn as PM then that all goes out of the window. So they have to find another way.
I feel this comment is spot on. The biggest issue facing stopping no deal Brexit is Corbyn. Unless he agrees to step aside it can all come crashing down
Article 50 will be extended by a Parliament which is implacably opposed to No Deal. The route to this will be legislation. Herdson seems tacitly to accept this in his rather muddled arguments.
The House of Commons cannot unilaterally extend Article 50. The EU Council has to agree. And as Boris Johnson is a member of that council he could actually still veto it.
No, on these matters, the departing state's representative is not part of the European Council. Article 50(4):
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
Interesting that 23% of Remain voters back No Deal provided it means no Corbyn but only 10% of Leave voters back PM Corbyn and EUref2.
Shows that for almost a quarter of Remain voters stopping Corbyn is the key priority rather than stopping Brexit
Who are presumably mainly Tory remainers, and are the reason why Swinson was right to treat Corbyn PM as a non-starter (even if she can be criticised for the way in which she went about rejecting the idea). The LibDem position is not just about rejecting nodeal Brexit, it is opposing Brexit full stop - and therefore what happens in an election following an extension is very important. The LibDems can clean up with Tory remainers in such an election and probably retain (at a minimum) an immovable block to Brexit. If the Tory remainers believe she will prop up Corbyn as PM then that all goes out of the window. So they have to find another way.
I feel this comment is spot on. The biggest issue facing stopping no deal Brexit is Corbyn. Unless he agrees to step aside it can all come crashing down
Why on earth should Corbyn just step aside? No deal Brexit benefits him, provided he escapes the blame.
This is politics -- what are you willing to offer Corbyn so that he steps aside?
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
If the the Lib Dems don't run under a clear Revoke policy in a pre-Brexit GE, then they're fools.
Labour's policy is a complete mess and includes the possibility of campaigning against their own deal. Note that while they don't want May's red lines, Corbyn does want other unicorny ones of his own. This is not a Remain policy though.
I'd be surprised if the LDs ran on Revoke but if they do then we know what happens: 1) If they win an overall majority they revoke 2) If they don't they settle for a referendum with Revoke on it.
I think Labour's policy is (finally) perfectly coherent. It includes the possibility of campaigning against their own deal, as Cameron's manifesto did in 2015. That's OK - the point of the negotiations is to satisfy the original referendum result which they didn't recommend (assuming the voters still want to do it when they see it) so there's nothing weird about saying, "this is the deal we've negotiated, it's better than the one TMay suggested and it won't kill us but we think it would be better to remain".
It's true that the result that Labour is promising from their negotiations isn't really going to happen, but if TMay could do a deal then so can Labour, and if that fails there's always the existing WA. Once the deal is decided the path forward goes through the referendum, which makes it way easier to get it through parliament.
Interesting that 23% of Remain voters back No Deal provided it means no Corbyn but only 10% of Leave voters back PM Corbyn and EUref2.
Shows that for almost a quarter of Remain voters stopping Corbyn is the key priority rather than stopping Brexit
Who are presumably mainly Tory remainers, and are the reason why Swinson was right to treat Corbyn PM as a non-starter (even if she can be criticised for the way in which she went about rejecting the idea). The LibDem position is not just about rejecting nodeal Brexit, it is opposing Brexit full stop - and therefore what happens in an election following an extension is very important. The LibDems can clean up with Tory remainers in such an election and probably retain (at a minimum) an immovable block to Brexit. If the Tory remainers believe she will prop up Corbyn as PM then that all goes out of the window. So they have to find another way.
Certainly the LDs cannot get too close to Corbyn if they want to pick up Tory seats in the South, agreed
When Frodo set off to destroy the evil ring of power, he didn’t know every twist and turn of the road ahead. Indeed, he said to Elrond that he ‘did not know the way ahead’ at all.
He only knew that he had to destroy it. To cast it back into the fires from whence it came.
And Remainers have such a game-ending trump card, do they?
In any case, that's completely backs up what I'm saying. Destroying the ring *was* the grand strategy decided at the Council of Elrond.
Where Remainers are is as if it'd decided that they'd like to stop Sauron by continuing to battle for Osgiliath.
How on earth is switching the tax to sellers, a tax on "owning" your own home?
And anyone selling to buy, simply gets the "benefit" on their subsequent purchase.
Can't see it makes much difference in the real world - buyers can afford slightly more, sellers get slightly less, so prices rise slightly. That's how a free market works, and it shouldn't need a leftie like me to tell the Tories that.
With one exception. The only people badly affected are first-time buyers who are currently exempt up to a higher level - they will lose that benefit without sellers getting a compensating gain, so the net effect will be a small revenue gain for the Treasury at the expense of young buyers.
The flipside is that the difficulty for many first time buyers isn't actually the cost of the house, given how low mortgage rates are. It is the upfront costs - ie. deposit, legal/surveyor fees, fitout costs AND SDLT. Adding the tax onto the mortgage doesn't make much difference. In London mortgage costs tend to be below rental costs.
I disagree with David in that I don't see that it much matter who is PM for 2-3 months max with no majority. For that reason I think Corbyn should give way if needed and go for a Lab figure who he trusts.
But ultimately to get Ref2, it's pretty obvious that a non-tory govt will be required for a reasonably long period (minimum 6 months).
Unless the Lib Dems do spectacularly well in the next GE, that govt must be led by Corbyn.
So at some point the other parties are going to have to choose between Corbyn or No Deal.
I just don't see what is in this short term GONU for Labour (Corbyn or beyond). Taking the excrement covered baton that is Brexit from the Tories would be political suicide and only serves to let Johnson off the hook. Is Corbyn so altruistic he would dump his personal ambitions, the party he recently hijacked and his Soviet dream down the Brexit drain for the good of the nation and its hard working, if misguided citizens? He is not!
Corbyn made his offer, perfectly aware it would be rejected.
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
Great graphic. But even worse than I thought. We haven't been outside the top 6 for over 50 years and for most of them in the top 4.
On that chart we are still 5th and it finishes in 2017 ie pre Brexit.
For most of the rest of the time (apart for a brief period when we still had much of the Empire and were second) we were between 4th and 6th alternating with France and Italy and with the rise of China's economy we are unlikely ever to get higher than 5th again and with the rise of India's economy too probably 6th is the best we could hope for given we have much smaller economies thsn China and India
I disagree with David in that I don't see that it much matter who is PM for 2-3 months max with no majority. For that reason I think Corbyn should give way if needed and go for a Lab figure who he trusts.
But ultimately to get Ref2, it's pretty obvious that a non-tory govt will be required for a reasonably long period (minimum 6 months).
Unless the Lib Dems do spectacularly well in the next GE, that govt must be led by Corbyn.
So at some point the other parties are going to have to choose between Corbyn or No Deal.
I think it will be no deal from the response to Corbyn's proposal. They have already chosen that route. So will have to live with the outcome.
I think it's the other way round. Corbyn is unelectable even with a bunch of loaned Remain votes. Eventually the Labour Party should realise Corbyn is seeing it to its grave.
He is only applying it to Remainers who want to stop us leaving on October 31st which I believe would include you but not me in the unlikely event he won and we got a Brexit Party government
It doesn't matter whether it is paid by the borrower or the seller.
If it doesn't matter whether it is paid by the seller or borrower then it should be paid by the seller. For the same reason as PAYE being paid by the employer makes sense.
The seller has a lump sum of cash when the sale completes. Taking it out of the seller means it is automatic and never really saved or spent by anyone.
Taking it from the borrower means they need to have the cash up front, you are front-loading the borrowers expenditure and they have to save it real terms. If the seller charges it to the borrower in the sale price, then yes it is the same to the government but the mortgage covers a large proportion of it. It takes the borrowers expenditure from being up front along with the deposit to being in the future.
Example: House sale at £300k, not a first time buyer, buyer getting a mortgage with a 20% deposit. Deposit: £60,000 Stamp Duty: £5,000 Total up front: £65,000
Alternate: House sale of £305k, not a first time buyer, 20% deposit, no buyers stamp duty. Deposit: £61,000 Total up front: £61,000
So the seller benefits from the status of the buyer (first time buyer/not first time buyer?). I'm not sure exactly how that is going to work fairly. In practice wouldn't the tax be 'simplified' and all the distinction between types of buyer be removed?
That's essentially how it works at the moment. I wanted to demonstrate to @rcs1000 that it does make a difference whether it is paid by buyer/seller. The difference being because of the circumstances of the seller resolving the sale down to just cash while the buying is using cash plus mortgage, so taking the cash from the person with the cash essentially allows the person without much cash to put a share of the tax into the mortgage.
The first time buyer differential may be kept or removed but by keeping the example clear and consistent it was easy to prove the numbers - at least to me the proof stands. If @rcs1000 still objects I would be curious why?
It’s certainly an idea worthy of serious investigation, as you’ve highlighted the major issue at the moment is the amount of cash the buyer needs to find which cannot be mortgaged.
The argument against would be in a recession or repossession scenario, where the seller has negative equity and can’t find the cash he needs to pay the stamp duty.
Alternatively, scrap stamp duty altogether and add to council tax. SD is a huge barrier to labour mobility, especially among the middle classes, and keeps many professions located in a small number of locations.
Interesting that 23% of Remain voters back No Deal provided it means no Corbyn but only 10% of Leave voters back PM Corbyn and EUref2.
Shows that for almost a quarter of Remain voters stopping Corbyn is the key priority rather than stopping Brexit
I find that weird on several levels. The only way to make sense of it is that voters believe Corbyn to be a Leaver who will screw up so we'll end up leaving anyway. I would take five years of Corbyn if it meant remaining in the EU but I can understand those who wouldn't. It's the back to the 70s that's the killer.
I feel like the most advantageous thing Corbyn could do- assuming that he can't actually become caretaker PM himself- is hold firm for a while longer, then eventually nominate somebody acceptible. Ideally somebody Labour who's clearly not in his inner circle but who's been loyal, like Cooper. His support would be on the condition that there's a GE immediately after the deadline has been extended.
He is only applying it to Remainers who want to stop us leaving on October 31st which I believe would include you but not me in the unlikely event he won and we got a Brexit Party government
I disagree with David in that I don't see that it much matter who is PM for 2-3 months max with no majority. For that reason I think Corbyn should give way if needed and go for a Lab figure who he trusts.
But ultimately to get Ref2, it's pretty obvious that a non-tory govt will be required for a reasonably long period (minimum 6 months).
Unless the Lib Dems do spectacularly well in the next GE, that govt must be led by Corbyn.
So at some point the other parties are going to have to choose between Corbyn or No Deal.
To get to Ref2, Corbyn needs a deal to hold a referendum on. He has no need to rush that. Indeed, if Remain votes are keeping him in place pending that referendum, he has every reason to drag it out as long as possible.
It took May 20 months from A50 notification to reaching a deal, or 28 months from the referendum if you prefer. It took Cameron 13 months from introducing the legislation to holding the referendum.
Corbyn could say that going on precedent, 3 years would be the minimum required to see the policy through. This might be stretching a truth as - assuming the EU was willing to reopen the WA, though they probably would in this situation - much of the existing deal could be copied across. The referendum could also be legislated for during the talks. Even so, that's what *could* be done by a government in a hurry on the issue; Corbyn's wouldn't be.
The odd thing about David's piece is that it glosses over what happens if the can is kicked down the road to allow an election shortly after Oct 31 (yes it needs EU agreement and yes it would be forthcoming) and the Tories lose.
Even if you don't believe my personal knowledge that Corbyn is (mildly) anti-Brexit, in practice he'd be dependent on MPs inside and outside Labour who wouldn't dream of voting for Brexit. In principle the Government would have a go at a fresh deal and would then put it to a new referendum as one option vs Remain, but in reality the steam would have gone out of the effort.
There are all kinds of reasons why one might not want the Tories to lose. But if they do, Brexit is probably dead.
Incidentally, the cross-party letter that I helped with is the lead in the online Guardian letters page today:
Yeah Mr Palmer - truth is , by your own admission you and many of your colleagues who tacitly supported Blair while always quietly hoping for extreme socialism in the future. There is no good reason why anyone should believe a word you say on this or any other matter
I thought we were supposed to like "big tent" parties?
Just one additional point about this thread - that the difficulties are all summed up in the title! It refers to "remainers" grand strategy, and this falls at the first hurdle. Many involved are not remainers they are nodeal opponents. Almost all of these may have been remainers in the referendum, but that is not the same thing. Which is why the most viable route to averting no deal is to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement. And it is never even raised as an option.
I disagree with David in that I don't see that it much matter who is PM for 2-3 months max with no majority. For that reason I think Corbyn should give way if needed and go for a Lab figure who he trusts.
But ultimately to get Ref2, it's pretty obvious that a non-tory govt will be required for a reasonably long period (minimum 6 months).
Unless the Lib Dems do spectacularly well in the next GE, that govt must be led by Corbyn.
So at some point the other parties are going to have to choose between Corbyn or No Deal.
To get to Ref2, Corbyn needs a deal to hold a referendum on. He has no need to rush that. Indeed, if Remain votes are keeping him in place pending that referendum, he has every reason to drag it out as long as possible.
It took May 20 months from A50 notification to reaching a deal, or 28 months from the referendum if you prefer. It took Cameron 13 months from introducing the legislation to holding the referendum.
Corbyn could say that going on precedent, 3 years would be the minimum required to see the policy through. This might be stretching a truth as - assuming the EU was willing to reopen the WA, though they probably would in this situation - much of the existing deal could be copied across. The referendum could also be legislated for during the talks. Even so, that's what *could* be done by a government in a hurry on the issue; Corbyn's wouldn't be.
This is why the "second referendum before a GE" stance makes no sense. The top priority after extended the Brexit deadline has to be getting a government with a democratic mandate.
How on earth is switching the tax to sellers, a tax on "owning" your own home?
And anyone selling to buy, simply gets the "benefit" on their subsequent purchase.
Anyone selling not to buy gets taxed twice. They already paid stamp duty once.
The elderly, selling their home to pay for care (key Tory demographic) now get taxed on that transaction.
Genius...
And so they increase the price they are willing to sell for by the tax amount. Paid for by the amount that the buyer has saved. And it's not as if many elderly sellers haven't made huge sums on their property over the purchase price anyway.
Earlier our Turnip master in the north repeated a much vaunted Nat claim that before the SindyRef campaign support for independence was at 20% and they put on 24 points during the campaign. I decided to do a wee fact check.
Average 'No' Lead:
2013: 16.6% 2014 - Before campaign:11.6% Result: 10.6%
So rather than "putting on 24 points" it looks like the Campaign put on "1" point in the year it was held.
He is only applying it to Remainers who want to stop us leaving on October 31st which I believe would include you but not me in the unlikely event he won and we got a Brexit Party government
Well, glad you cleared that up. What a charming fellow.
I think Labour's policy is (finally) perfectly coherent. It includes the possibility of campaigning against their own deal, as Cameron's manifesto did in 2015. That's OK - the point of the negotiations is to satisfy the original referendum result which they didn't recommend (assuming the voters still want to do it when they see it) so there's nothing weird about saying, "this is the deal we've negotiated, it's better than the one TMay suggested and it won't kill us but we think it would be better to remain".
It's true that the result that Labour is promising from their negotiations isn't really going to happen, but if TMay could do a deal then so can Labour, and if that fails there's always the existing WA. Once the deal is decided the path forward goes through the referendum, which makes it way easier to get it through parliament.
Yep.
The charge that Labour's position is confused or deceitful or impractical arises not from dispassionate analysis of what the position is but from paranoid, Gypsy Rose Lee notions about what "Corbyn really wants". The normally excellent Matthew Paris succumbs to this in the Times today, rather disappointingly.
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
Are you really saying that India with twenty times the UK population might at some point have a GDP equal to the UK's ?
As long as I can remember we've been hearing that UK GDP has been surpassed by France (multiple times), Italy, Brazil and India.
For that matter Stuart Dickson predicts Poland will imminently surpass from the UK.
We play hokey-cokey with France and the figure are in dollars
Just one additional point about this thread - that the difficulties are all summed up in the title! It refers to "remainers" grand strategy, and this falls at the first hurdle. Many involved are not remainers they are nodeal opponents. Almost all of these may have been remainers in the referendum, but that is not the same thing. Which is why the most viable route to averting no deal is to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement. And it is never even raised as an option.
That conclusion is indeed correct.
However, there are Remainers who most definitely do want to remain, and they are lacking a workable plan. In the first instance, allying with Different Dealers makes sense. Beyond that, not so much.
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
Great graphic. But even worse than I thought. We haven't been outside the top 6 for over 50 years and for most of them in the top 4.
On that chart we are still 5th and it finishes in 2017 ie pre Brexit.
For most of the rest of the time (apart for a brief period when we still had much of the Empire and were second) we were between 4th and 6th alternating with France and Italy and with the rise of China's economy we are unlikely ever to get higher than 5th again and with the rise of India's economy too probably 6th is the best we could hope for given we have much smaller economies thsn China and India
FWIW (probably, "Not a lot") the University of Denver 'Futures' department has us at number 5 in 2100 - just ahead of France and the largest economy in Europe. The top 4 are China, India USA and Japan.
I disagree with David in that I don't see that it much matter who is PM for 2-3 months max with no majority. For that reason I think Corbyn should give way if needed and go for a Lab figure who he trusts.
But ultimately to get Ref2, it's pretty obvious that a non-tory govt will be required for a reasonably long period (minimum 6 months).
Unless the Lib Dems do spectacularly well in the next GE, that govt must be led by Corbyn.
So at some point the other parties are going to have to choose between Corbyn or No Deal.
To get to Ref2, Corbyn needs a deal to hold a referendum on. He has no need to rush that. Indeed, if Remain votes are keeping him in place pending that referendum, he has every reason to drag it out as long as possible.
It took May 20 months from A50 notification to reaching a deal, or 28 months from the referendum if you prefer. It took Cameron 13 months from introducing the legislation to holding the referendum.
Corbyn could say that going on precedent, 3 years would be the minimum required to see the policy through. This might be stretching a truth as - assuming the EU was willing to reopen the WA, though they probably would in this situation - much of the existing deal could be copied across. The referendum could also be legislated for during the talks. Even so, that's what *could* be done by a government in a hurry on the issue; Corbyn's wouldn't be.
This is why the "second referendum before a GE" stance makes no sense. The top priority after extended the Brexit deadline has to be getting a government with a democratic mandate.
This is why the "second referendum before a GE" stance makes no sense. The top priority after extended the Brexit deadline has to be getting a government with a democratic mandate.
Exactamundo.
To get Ref2, one must first have a GE and that GE must result in PM Jez.
All other routes to Ref2 - and thus to Remain - are exotic in the extreme.
Has anyone considered that for once in his miserable life Corbyn played a blinder last week, and Ms. Swinson walked into the trap?
That is correct.
The LibDems' position is that if there is No Deal. we will have apocalyptic scenes of people dying for lack of medicine, food riots, civil strife in Northern Ireland, the break-up of the United Kingdom with the secession of Scotland, a holocaust of sheep and cattle, mass redundancies & catastrophic failure of British industries.
I am not sure any MP in this rotten Parliament deserves to ever be returned in a General Election again.
It looks like not much has changed with the Lib dems then! I did Paddy's first PPB as leader titled on the call sheet 'Maggie's Broken Britain'. it was Paddy talking to camera intercut with the apocalyptic scenes you describe above. You should have written it. I suggested a soundtrack of Ralph McTell 'Streets of London' which naturally they couldn't afford. Pretty tame compared to mine actually
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
Great graphic. But even worse than I thought. We haven't been outside the top 6 for over 50 years and for most of them in the top 4.
On that chart we are still 5th and it finishes in 2017 ie pre Brexit.
For most of the rest of the time (apart for a brief period when we still had much of the Empire and were second) we were between 4th and 6th alternating with France and Italy and with the rise of China's economy we are unlikely ever to get higher than 5th again and with the rise of India's economy too probably 6th is the best we could hope for given we have much smaller economies thsn China and India
FWIW (probably, "Not a lot") the University of Denver 'Futures' department has us at number 5 in 2100 - just ahead of France and the largest economy in Europe. The top 4 are China, India USA and Japan.
If we want to maintain the UK's position in the economic willy-waving contest, maybe we should be the ones trying to buy Greenland?
Geopolitically, it is better for the EU if the U.K. is inside the Union.
I think that goes for each of them EU 27 too, with the possible exception of France where I could argue it either way.
I read yesterday that the UK is soon to be relegated to 7th richest country in the world. The much vaunted 5th to be taken by India or france. I can't find the reference now. I imagine without Scotland we could slip even lower. Not a good look for the empirists nor for the PM who presided over it.
I believe that the UK economy is roughly the size of the state of California,which it must be said has the advantage of trading with the other 49 states.
We, on the other hand, don't seem able to decide what we want to be part of, or even whether we want to stay united.
As always a good article. I do not ,however, quite follow the reasoning in this section - ' If a Confidence vote is tabled in September, it’d be more than a month to the EU summit and then even if an election was immediately called, polling day wouldn’t be until late November.' In the event of a successful Confidence vote in September, why would a new PM have to wait until the EU summit to call an election - having already requested an extension? Surely an election would still be possible on 24th or 31st October!
The key is that the key to getting into Government and sustaining yourself is to want to actually do things. Simply opposing is never a manifesto for Government, and in that the Conservatives are currently at a massive advantage. To be fair, under the surface, the likes of McDonnell are trying to focus on what Labour would do - but it doesn't get much airtime, and much of it is an anaethema to the electorate.
The Saj's Stamp Duty proposal appears to be targeted quite explicitly at people who will never vote Tory, while pissing off vast swathes of traditional Tory voters.
Another tax owning your own home seems almost as voter friendly as the Dementia Tax.
In practice there is very little difference
When considering affordability buyers consider (or should consider!) all costs
So let’s say their total budget is £1,000 and they have to pay £100 stamp duty and £50 legal and other costs. The maximum they can afford to pay for a home is £850.
If stamp duty is paid by the seller then the maximum they can pay moves to £950 (£1,000 minus legal cost). The proceeds received by the seller remain £850 as they now have to pay the duty.
The result is that house prices will increase to the point where it is breakeven for the seller. However (a) you can’t borrow the stamp duty cost as a buyer, but if the collateral is more valuable then you can borrow more against it subject to income multipliers; and (b) it will make 100% mortgages harder
Net net it will help buyers, help banks, and be neutral to sellers (except recent buyers who now have to pay the tax if they sell - I’d hope the government would be smart enough to allow, say, a 5 year look back period against which you can offset stamp duty paid on purchase to address this unfairness).
It’s good policy, on balance, (and gets people used to the idea of paying tax on the sale of property) but will be hard to sell politically because the mechanisms are quite complicated
Yeah Mr Palmer - truth is , by your own admission you and many of your colleagues who tacitly supported Blair while always quietly hoping for extreme socialism in the future. There is no good reason why anyone should believe a word you say on this or any other matter
Eh? I don't see why my being candid about my own views (which I always shared as an MP too - I was open about being a former Communist, for instance, without any particular need to mention it) should mean that you can't rely on what I say being true - rather the contrary. You might not agree with it, but that's something else.
You were not candid on here about any of it until Corbyn became leader. You were a loyal Blairite and even had a minor post in his government I think. You gave all the appearance of a middle of the road centrist. Plenty of left-wingers have had extremist views in the their past which they subsequently disavowed. Not in your case - the Corbyn project steeped as it is with anti-semitism was and now is, apparently your utopia
I disagree with David in that I don't see that it much matter who is PM for 2-3 months max with no majority. For that reason I think Corbyn should give way if needed and go for a Lab figure who he trusts.
But ultimately to get Ref2, it's pretty obvious that a non-tory govt will be required for a reasonably long period (minimum 6 months).
Unless the Lib Dems do spectacularly well in the next GE, that govt must be led by Corbyn.
So at some point the other parties are going to have to choose between Corbyn or No Deal.
To get to Ref2, Corbyn needs a deal to hold a referendum on. He has no need to rush that. Indeed, if Remain votes are keeping him in place pending that referendum, he has every reason to drag it out as long as possible.
It took May 20 months from A50 notification to reaching a deal, or 28 months from the referendum if you prefer. It took Cameron 13 months from introducing the legislation to holding the referendum.
Corbyn could say that going on precedent, 3 years would be the minimum required to see the policy through. This might be stretching a truth as - assuming the EU was willing to reopen the WA, though they probably would in this situation - much of the existing deal could be copied across. The referendum could also be legislated for during the talks. Even so, that's what *could* be done by a government in a hurry on the issue; Corbyn's wouldn't be.
This is why the "second referendum before a GE" stance makes no sense. The top priority after extended the Brexit deadline has to be getting a government with a democratic mandate.
Perhaps it should be straight revocation before a GE. Then we can have an election with a choice between electing a majority government to do Brexit properly from scratch, or consigning the whole thing to history.
Can't believe you missed out the line "So when does a TANDA become a PANDA?" TSE would never have missed that....
I think this article puts up more barriers than are there in truth, and reminds of the similar articles about how Theresa May couldn't call an election in 2017 due to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. When it came to it, she asked for it in the morning, got it in the afternoon, job done.
Parliament has always done the minimum required to absolutely guarantee that there won't be a No-Deal and I don't see that changing. Thing is, I reckon that's what Boris is relying on without wanting to get his hands dirty. If we have to go over the cliff, it'll be his fault and his alone; nothing that ever happens is the Oppositions fault.
The vote actually took place the following day - and quite a few MPs failed to support the Dissolution motion by abstaining or voting against it.
The key is that the key to getting into Government and sustaining yourself is to want to actually do things. Simply opposing is never a manifesto for Government, and in that the Conservatives are currently at a massive advantage. To be fair, under the surface, the likes of McDonnell are trying to focus on what Labour would do - but it doesn't get much airtime, and much of it is an anaethema to the electorate.
The Saj's Stamp Duty proposal appears to be targeted quite explicitly at people who will never vote Tory, while pissing off vast swathes of traditional Tory voters.
Another tax owning your own home seems almost as voter friendly as the Dementia Tax.
In practice there is very little difference
When considering affordability buyers consider (or should consider!) all costs
So let’s say their total budget is £1,000 and they have to pay £100 stamp duty and £50 legal and other costs. The maximum they can afford to pay for a home is £850.
If stamp duty is paid by the seller then the maximum they can pay moves to £950 (£1,000 minus legal cost). The proceeds received by the seller remain £850 as they now have to pay the duty.
The result is that house prices will increase to the point where it is breakeven for the seller. However (a) you can’t borrow the stamp duty cost as a buyer, but if the collateral is more valuable then you can borrow more against it subject to income multipliers; and (b) it will make 100% mortgages harder
Net net it will help buyers, help banks, and be neutral to sellers (except recent buyers who now have to pay the tax if they sell - I’d hope the government would be smart enough to allow, say, a 5 year look back period against which you can offset stamp duty paid on purchase to address this unfairness).
It’s good policy, on balance, (and gets people used to the idea of paying tax on the sale of property) but will be hard to sell politically because the mechanisms are quite complicated
Doubt any of this will get through HoC with Johnson's majority of one. Like all their proposals and budget ideas. None of it will happen this side of GE I suspect.
The odd thing about David's piece is that it glosses over what happens if the can is kicked down the road to allow an election shortly after Oct 31 (yes it needs EU agreement and yes it would be forthcoming) and the Tories lose.
Even if you don't believe my personal knowledge that Corbyn is (mildly) anti-Brexit, in practice he'd be dependent on MPs inside and outside Labour who wouldn't dream of voting for Brexit. In principle the Government would have a go at a fresh deal and would then put it to a new referendum as one option vs Remain, but in reality the steam would have gone out of the effort.
There are all kinds of reasons why one might not want the Tories to lose. But if they do, Brexit is probably dead.
Incidentally, the cross-party letter that I helped with is the lead in the online Guardian letters page today:
Yeah Mr Palmer - truth is , by your own admission you and many of your colleagues who tacitly supported Blair while always quietly hoping for extreme socialism in the future. There is no good reason why anyone should believe a word you say on this or any other matter
I thought we were supposed to like "big tent" parties?
Not ones which shelter the vilest of anti-semites.
One of the most interesting aspects of the brexit debate is how so many people who have never traded anything in their life and will probably never do in the future as so set on leaving the single market. In my industry which is healthcare the status quo is the single market and we will eventually be part of it again as there is no real alternative. This is well understood in our industry. In the meantime if we temporarily leave it then headquarter and production operations will move into the EU for the sake of simplicity and cost. There will be no movement the other way. The jobs will go with the move and quite possibly many of the skilled staff.
Can the UK survive without a pharma industry? Yes of course the sun will still come up. However we will be a poorer society and our NHS will have less access to new drugs and devices and pay more for them.
I call bullshit. My industry is life sciences and no one meaningful is moving their HQ. They are all experienced with dealing with multiple regulators.
I feel like the most advantageous thing Corbyn could do- assuming that he can't actually become caretaker PM himself- is hold firm for a while longer, then eventually nominate somebody acceptible. Ideally somebody Labour who's clearly not in his inner circle but who's been loyal, like Cooper. His support would be on the condition that there's a GE immediately after the deadline has been extended.
I think that is very, very dangerous for him.
He is promoting a rival.
Once someone is PM, it is much easier for them to look & sound Prime Ministerial.
On topic, I do think the opposition to Johnson has lost itself down a rabbit hole of unrealistic GONU options.
It does seem to me that the only option is VONC and an election because of, you know, numbers.
Ultimately, I don't think the Cummings threat of Brexit during an election campaign really works. The EU will most likely say, "We will behave as if you have not left until the day after election day. If Johnson returns as PM, we will respect that and behave as if you've left with no deal on the Friday morning. If someone else comes in, we will extend to 31 March (or whatever) and behave as if you never left on 31 October."
I also doubt the resolve of Johnson to leave without a deal in the middle of an election campaign - whether or not it's justified, there's a very real risk of financial meltdown, runs on the pound and on the banks, suspensions of markets, emergency BoE action and so on. None of it is a good look when you're trying to project confidence and talk about extra bobbies on the beat etc.
If Corbyn, Harman, Clarke, O'Mara or whoever want a vanity VOC in the statutory fortnight following a VONC then that's all good fun but not terribly serious. Election then resolves itself into No Deal Brexit versus Extend, Renegotiate & Referendum versus Revoke & Remain.
One of the most interesting aspects of the brexit debate is how so many people who have never traded anything in their life and will probably never do in the future as so set on leaving the single market. In my industry which is healthcare the status quo is the single market and we will eventually be part of it again as there is no real alternative. This is well understood in our industry. In the meantime if we temporarily leave it then headquarter and production operations will move into the EU for the sake of simplicity and cost. There will be no movement the other way. The jobs will go with the move and quite possibly many of the skilled staff.
Can the UK survive without a pharma industry? Yes of course the sun will still come up. However we will be a poorer society and our NHS will have less access to new drugs and devices and pay more for them.
I call bullshit. My industry is life sciences and no one meaningful is moving their HQ.
You might have come across a body called the EMA that moved its headquarters recently.
An excellent article by David as usual and I am very sorry he has resigned from membership of the Tory party. It is nonsense to say a "No Deal" was not canvassed during the 2016 campaign. David Cameron, George Osborne, virtually the entire Westminster bubble media and so called "elite" told us if we voted Out the world would end. 17.4 million of us told them to collectively go and feck themselves!
Surely the dishonourable member for Totnes sums up the situation perfectly. Elected on a manifesto to honour Brexit, immediately on re-election sets out to stop Brexit, huffs and puffs and eventually throws a hissy fit and leaves the party. Then she eventually joins the Liberal Undemocrats whose leader only believes in honouring referenda which suit her and who came 3rd in Totnes in 2017. Said MP was a leading supporter of a bill to require defecting MPs to stand down and face a by-election and when faced with precisely that situation, she refuses to do so!
As many point out, a "No deal" Brexit does not mean there are no deals. Hundreds have already been agreed. Let's just get the feck out of the EU and then Boris can call a GE. Then we will see how many of the 650 so called Honourable members truly are in the eyes of their constituents. As for Ken Clarke or any Tory who goes for this so called National Unity idea, they should immediately be stripped of party membership. In any club, if you don't like the rules set by the majority, you leave!
I have always thought Boris acted too much like a buffoon but clearly in planning his campaign for election to PM, he does indeed appear to have got all his ducks in a row and if there is a VONC, a cabinet who will most probably stand four square behind him! Roll on a GE the 2nd week of November.
It will be No Deal and November election as you say
I feel like the most advantageous thing Corbyn could do- assuming that he can't actually become caretaker PM himself- is hold firm for a while longer, then eventually nominate somebody acceptible. Ideally somebody Labour who's clearly not in his inner circle but who's been loyal, like Cooper. His support would be on the condition that there's a GE immediately after the deadline has been extended.
I think that is very, very dangerous for him.
He is promoting a rival.
Once someone is PM, it is much easier for them to look & sound Prime Ministerial.
I just don't see any of this happening. Too many agendas, too many tribalists, too many conflicting game plans.
Ultimately, I don't think the Cummings threat of Brexit during an election campaign really works. The EU will most likely say, "We will behave as if you have not left until the day after election day. If Johnson returns as PM, we will respect that and behave as if you've left with no deal on the Friday morning. If someone else comes in, we will extend to 31 March (or whatever) and behave as if you never left on 31 October."
That's not how the law works, and the EU will stick to the law
Comments
As long as I can remember we've been hearing that UK GDP has been surpassed by France (multiple times), Italy, Brazil and India.
For that matter Stuart Dickson predicts Poland will imminently surpass from the UK.
Another tax owning your own home seems almost as voter friendly as the Dementia Tax.
No Deal Brexit + No Corbyn vs Corbyn + EURef2
London: 40 / 40
South: 53 / 32
Mid/W: 51 / 33
North: 49 / 36
Scot: 34 / 44
So only the Scots break in favour of Corbyn, while even Labour London is split down the middle. In the rest of the country a clear majority (or (just) plurality in the North) in favour of No Deal Brexit + No Corbyn vs the alternative.
https://tinyurl.com/y4lxgct7
Maybe not quite ' enough of the public' share your view.
If she had painted Corbyn as pro Brexit, this being yet another sham attempt rather than a serious plan, and tried to internally isolate him by offering to work with members of his cabinet, Starmer, Thornberry, Watson perhaps even McDonell, rather than Harman or Clarke, she would have scored serious political capital vs Labour.
Instead the passive rejection, just leads to her looking weak, reminding everyone she only has a few MPs, and allowing Corbyn to convince some of the less politically engaged that he has tried his best to stop Brexit but was blocked by the LDs (sadly still seen as the tory helpers to many lefty remainers).
And anyone selling to buy, simply gets the "benefit" on their subsequent purchase.
.
.
This would be a very good base for Corbyn if no deal is delivered and a disaster, it is at that stage in 2020 and beyond he could conceivably gain a majority.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2019/08/john-strafford-the-grieve-case-raises-a-question-do-local-associations-have-the-power-not-to-reselect-their-conservative-mp.html
1) David calls the temporary government TANDA, when as any fule noe the correct technical term is GoNAfaE.
2) Why assume the VONC happens at the beginning of September? Shorely the whole operation is much easier to bring off after it goes right up to the wire, when the fact that there's no renegotiation is obvious to everyone, and everybody's properly freaking about about the fact that nobody knows how they're going to do business next week.
3) This: Yes! That's the whole point! Parliament has several different factions, they can't agree on anything, so you need a new parliament. And TBF, once you remove the Remainer Tories and Lab MPs run on a new manifesto, I think you do actually have two coherent options:
* The Tories and BXP want to crash out with No Deal
* LD want to ??? then referendum, Lab want to renegotiate without TMay's red lines then referendum, which also handily fills in the LD's ???.
The Downing Street pussies need to watch out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wykaDgXoajc
Can the UK survive without a pharma industry? Yes of course the sun will still come up. However we will be a poorer society and our NHS will have less access to new drugs and devices and pay more for them.
But ultimately to get Ref2, it's pretty obvious that a non-tory govt will be required for a reasonably long period (minimum 6 months).
Unless the Lib Dems do spectacularly well in the next GE, that govt must be led by Corbyn.
So at some point the other parties are going to have to choose between Corbyn or No Deal.
The way to mess with his mind is to smile nicely, let him get on with it for a bit, and strike when he has to admit the cupboard is bare sometime in October.
Back to Lucas?
Shows that for almost a quarter of Remain voters stopping Corbyn is the key priority rather than stopping Brexit
If Johnson resigns, someone else - presumably from outside the Tory Party - would have to be appointed PM. That person would very probably not have a majority. Johnson, as the new LotO, could then table a VoNC in him or her. That's the route.
* The Tories and BXP want to crash out with No Deal
* LD want to ??? then referendum, Lab want to renegotiate without TMay's red lines then referendum, which also handily fills in the LD's ???.
If the the Lib Dems don't run under a clear Revoke policy in a pre-Brexit GE, then they're fools.
Labour's policy is a complete mess and includes the possibility of campaigning against their own deal. Note that while they don't want May's red lines, Corbyn does want other unicorny ones of his own. This is not a Remain policy though.
They have already chosen that route.
So will have to live with the outcome.
With one exception. The only people badly affected are first-time buyers who are currently exempt up to a higher level - they will lose that benefit without sellers getting a compensating gain, so the net effect will be a small revenue gain for the Treasury at the expense of young buyers.
For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
24% of Lab 2017 voters also support No Deal Brexit plus No Corbyn (as do 10% of current Labour VI.)
Another interesting contrast - C2DE are much less in favour of Corbyn/EuRef2 than ABC1
No deal Brexit + No Corbyn / Corbyn + EUREf2 (diff)
ABC1: 47 / 39 (+8)
C2DE: 49 / 30 (+19)
This is politics -- what are you willing to offer Corbyn so that he steps aside?
1) If they win an overall majority they revoke
2) If they don't they settle for a referendum with Revoke on it.
I think Labour's policy is (finally) perfectly coherent. It includes the possibility of campaigning against their own deal, as Cameron's manifesto did in 2015. That's OK - the point of the negotiations is to satisfy the original referendum result which they didn't recommend (assuming the voters still want to do it when they see it) so there's nothing weird about saying, "this is the deal we've negotiated, it's better than the one TMay suggested and it won't kill us but we think it would be better to remain".
It's true that the result that Labour is promising from their negotiations isn't really going to happen, but if TMay could do a deal then so can Labour, and if that fails there's always the existing WA. Once the deal is decided the path forward goes through the referendum, which makes it way easier to get it through parliament.
In any case, that's completely backs up what I'm saying. Destroying the ring *was* the grand strategy decided at the Council of Elrond.
Where Remainers are is as if it'd decided that they'd like to stop Sauron by continuing to battle for Osgiliath.
https://twitter.com/brexitparty_ds/status/1162648367308128256?s=21
The elderly, selling their home to pay for care (key Tory demographic) now get taxed on that transaction.
Genius...
Corbyn made his offer, perfectly aware it would be rejected.
For most of the rest of the time (apart for a brief period when we still had much of the Empire and were second) we were between 4th and 6th alternating with France and Italy and with the rise of China's economy we are unlikely ever to get higher than 5th again and with the rise of India's economy too probably 6th is the best we could hope for given we have much smaller economies thsn China and India
'Why Labour must once again become the party of the British Union'
https://tinyurl.com/yxap6u2g
The argument against would be in a recession or repossession scenario, where the seller has negative equity and can’t find the cash he needs to pay the stamp duty.
Alternatively, scrap stamp duty altogether and add to council tax. SD is a huge barrier to labour mobility, especially among the middle classes, and keeps many professions located in a small number of locations.
https://twitter.com/TowerOfLondon/status/1161898503636967425
Look at Hong Kong too after British rule
It took May 20 months from A50 notification to reaching a deal, or 28 months from the referendum if you prefer. It took Cameron 13 months from introducing the legislation to holding the referendum.
Corbyn could say that going on precedent, 3 years would be the minimum required to see the policy through. This might be stretching a truth as - assuming the EU was willing to reopen the WA, though they probably would in this situation - much of the existing deal could be copied across. The referendum could also be legislated for during the talks. Even so, that's what *could* be done by a government in a hurry on the issue; Corbyn's wouldn't be.
Average 'No' Lead:
2013: 16.6%
2014 - Before campaign:11.6%
Result: 10.6%
So rather than "putting on 24 points" it looks like the Campaign put on "1" point in the year it was held.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2014_Scottish_independence_referendum
I suspect the "we started on 20" claim comes from one poll from 2011.....
@stodge @MikeSmithson Seems like you guys don't know your own party's voters
The charge that Labour's position is confused or deceitful or impractical arises not from dispassionate analysis of what the position is but from paranoid, Gypsy Rose Lee notions about what "Corbyn really wants". The normally excellent Matthew Paris succumbs to this in the Times today, rather disappointingly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9l2yCH5wBk
Fair point.
However, there are Remainers who most definitely do want to remain, and they are lacking a workable plan. In the first instance, allying with Different Dealers makes sense. Beyond that, not so much.
To get Ref2, one must first have a GE and that GE must result in PM Jez.
All other routes to Ref2 - and thus to Remain - are exotic in the extreme.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-domaindev-st_emea&hsimp=yhs-st_emea&hspart=domaindev&p=ralph+mctells+streets+of+london#id=0&vid=fa326ed6b481abbe4e1591804b24fd69&action=click
We, on the other hand, don't seem able to decide what we want to be part of, or even whether we want to stay united.
' If a Confidence vote is tabled in September, it’d be more than a month to the EU summit and then even if an election was immediately called, polling day wouldn’t be until late November.'
In the event of a successful Confidence vote in September, why would a new PM have to wait until the EU summit to call an election - having already requested an extension? Surely an election would still be possible on 24th or 31st October!
When considering affordability buyers consider (or should consider!) all costs
So let’s say their total budget is £1,000 and they have to pay £100 stamp duty and £50 legal and other costs. The maximum they can afford to pay for a home is £850.
If stamp duty is paid by the seller then the maximum they can pay moves to £950 (£1,000 minus legal cost). The proceeds received by the seller remain £850 as they now have to pay the duty.
The result is that house prices will increase to the point where it is breakeven for the seller. However (a) you can’t borrow the stamp duty cost as a buyer, but if the collateral is more valuable then you can borrow more against it subject to income multipliers; and (b) it will make 100% mortgages harder
Net net it will help buyers, help banks, and be neutral to sellers (except recent buyers who now have to pay the tax if they sell - I’d hope the government would be smart enough to allow, say, a 5 year look back period against which you can offset stamp duty paid on purchase to address this unfairness).
It’s good policy, on balance, (and gets people used to the idea of paying tax on the sale of property) but will be hard to sell politically because the mechanisms are quite complicated
More No Deal madness.
The Tories will be out of power for five decades when this insanity is all over.
He is promoting a rival.
Once someone is PM, it is much easier for them to look & sound Prime Ministerial.
It does seem to me that the only option is VONC and an election because of, you know, numbers.
Ultimately, I don't think the Cummings threat of Brexit during an election campaign really works. The EU will most likely say, "We will behave as if you have not left until the day after election day. If Johnson returns as PM, we will respect that and behave as if you've left with no deal on the Friday morning. If someone else comes in, we will extend to 31 March (or whatever) and behave as if you never left on 31 October."
I also doubt the resolve of Johnson to leave without a deal in the middle of an election campaign - whether or not it's justified, there's a very real risk of financial meltdown, runs on the pound and on the banks, suspensions of markets, emergency BoE action and so on. None of it is a good look when you're trying to project confidence and talk about extra bobbies on the beat etc.
If Corbyn, Harman, Clarke, O'Mara or whoever want a vanity VOC in the statutory fortnight following a VONC then that's all good fun but not terribly serious. Election then resolves itself into No Deal Brexit versus Extend, Renegotiate & Referendum versus Revoke & Remain.