We need a second referendum to undo the damage of a very poorly designed first question. Whilst deceptively simple it failed in one key respect. Other less catastrophic referenda have pitched the status quo vs a clearly defined new end state. By failing to do that, the 2016 referendum created this mess.
We need to pitch the possible end states against one another, including an option to remain partly to ensure full participation, but also to recognise the vagueness of the first question. Something has to win now and a vote is the fairest way to do it IMO. There will be pain and outrage with any outcome. This is the least bad outcome.
Far chance of course whilst this government is bent on forcing its will through all possible parliamentary tactics and abuse of positional power.
It will be fascinating to see exactly when the losers vote brigade realise it isn’t going to happen. Will Brexit actually convince them that it won’t? I remain unconvinced...
Well that’s helpful. Who’s the losers brigade? May? Farage? This minority government? All of us? No one looks like a winner to me.
Nope, the people who keep talking up a second referendum...
Just offering solutions to the mess your lot created. You still can’t agree what Leave means.
One further point. Boris Johnson can threaten anti-no dealers with expulsion. But once they're gone, they're gone. They won't be coming back, they'll be looking for a new home (almost certainly the Lib Dems in the long term).
If (which I acknowledge is Spartan) you assume that post Brexit the Tories will adopt a more traditional posture then they will come back over time (eg Emma Nicholson is a Tory peer).
What has interested me in the conversations I’ve had is the number of donors and supporters who don’t like Boris one bit and yet are backing him because there needs to be resolution
To be fair Charles, you’re now talking to a rump of disaster capitalists, inbred aristocrats and crypto-fascists.
The view in No.10 might be that when faced with the prospect of Jezza and a nationalised Tesco sensible people would coalesce around the ever reliable, business-friendly, economically sound Tories. But those days have gone.
No one is going to fight the election on the economy. That means all is in play and voting for Jezza might, for the same cross party disaffected people, be the same sticking it to the man as voting leave was.
The election will be fought on what No Deal means in reality. The Tories will have to spend six weeks lying, day in and day out. That’s what will destroy them if they win. If they lose, they will destroy themselves in short time.
Keep asking the question why threatening the EU with the prospect of no deal is so damaging for them that they will give us what we want and on the other hand no deal is no problem with only a few bumps in the road. They can’t both be true.
One further point. Boris Johnson can threaten anti-no dealers with expulsion. But once they're gone, they're gone. They won't be coming back, they'll be looking for a new home (almost certainly the Lib Dems in the long term).
If (which I acknowledge is Spartan) you assume that post Brexit the Tories will adopt a more traditional posture then they will come back over time (eg Emma Nicholson is a Tory peer).
What has interested me in the conversations I’ve had is the number of donors and supporters who don’t like Boris one bit and yet are backing him because there needs to be resolution
"We hate you, we think you're treacherous quislings, now vote for us you rogues!"
One further point. Boris Johnson can threaten anti-no dealers with expulsion. But once they're gone, they're gone. They won't be coming back, they'll be looking for a new home (almost certainly the Lib Dems in the long term).
If (which I acknowledge is Spartan) you assume that post Brexit the Tories will adopt a more traditional posture then they will come back over time (eg Emma Nicholson is a Tory peer).
What has interested me in the conversations I’ve had is the number of donors and supporters who don’t like Boris one bit and yet are backing him because there needs to be resolution
That is one heck of an assumption. If you were one of the hard-right un-conservative Conservatives such as JRM or Bone, then why would you lose this chance to remodel the country in line with your backwards views?
As with Johnson (and Corbyn for that matter), this isn't really about Brexit. It's about getting power.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
No. What 'leave' meant in the referendum was unclear, and May's deal satisfied it for many leavers, including many prominent ones on here. It was a typically British compromise. The 2017 Conservative manifesto was mainly about a deal. The Conservative leadership election was infiltrated by entryists, as we saw on here. And the polling is not exactly favourable for no-deal.
So given the potential consequences of a no-deal, I'd say going for one given the above is utterly undemocratic. But at least we know you'll be safe of the consequences, whatever happens.
'Scum' is very constructive when talking about people threatening others for actions they have just done themselves. And those who support them knowing this.
What “leave” meant was very very clear
It meant leave.
Under Article 50 the U.K. and the EU had 2 years to agree a new set of arrangements
They failed
So we leave without a new set of arrangements
(And please don’t attack me personally. Playing the man not the ball is never pleasant)
Startling claim in Katy Balls’ piece for the Guardian:
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
What's startling about it? As with the non Corbynites most give up when defeated and the others wont all find a ready made home elsewhere so fight in the best way they can, by seeking to be wreckers.
They will have very few pavement-pounders going with them. And they will be looking for a sponsor with deep pockets.
Yes, and abandon the whole failed experiment. If Brexit had been introduced as a business initiative then the manager in charge would long have been sacked and the staff made redundant.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
It will be implemented by matter of treaty (Scotland will not be a member of the EU)
If the SP wishes to not pass any necessary laws that is a dereliction of their duty
Time the Treaty of Union was revoked, then we do not need to worry about Dictators laws from Westminster
Last time the Scots were asked they decided to stay. Should they change their mind then that would be a shame, but so be it.
(Snip) Cummings, a man who was in contempt of Parliament, has now humiliated the Queen insulted her ministers and demonstrated an arrogance that has seen no equal in an unelected bureaucrat since Thomas Cromwell was beheaded.
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
Thatcher made a massive u-turn over her original monetarist plan though. And I'm not sure where your idea of a sharp fall in employment comes from, it steadily rose until the mid 80s...
Unemployment fell sharply after the 1981 budget until a second recession in the late 80’s. I checked my memory of this this morning before posting but can’t access the table on my phone.
Unemployment continued to rise after 1981 but then fell sharply during the Lawson boom later in the 1980s:
Deep thought: If you've got 20 ex-Tories in their own independent group, that feels like enough to form an actual new coalition government, not a GoNAfaE. Execute on the Corbyn plan, get Brexit done or undone depending on the vote, *then* dissolve the thing and have a GE. Or if it's going OK, serve out the full term.
I know people have reservations about Corbyn but say there's a GE and it goes as well as the remain side can reasonably, there's still no possible outcome you can reasonably hope for with better arithmetic than now, ie a remainer majority with a Moderate Con blocking minority that can restrain Corbyn. If Boris wins that's bad, if you lose your seat (likely) that's bad, and if Corbyn wins big that's also bad.
There is only one answer to this and that is a GE
Any moves to install anyone as PM without a GE will result in uproar in the public as demonstrared by the dreadful figures for alternative PM with Corbyn on 12% Swinson on 11% and even Farage on 11%
The idea Corbyn would reject the chance of a GE is for the birds as even Chuka Umunna has just said on Sky
A novel idea was put forward last night that any extension would be put to the EU Council in mid October and then as a member Boris would veto it.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
In what sense are those threatened with deselection "moderates"? Grieve a moderate? He is the most extreme of Europhiles. Ditto Clarke. They snobbishly believe their views top trump those of their voters. They are wrong.
Wrong, they just don't suddenly say, like some sort of moron, "oh a small majority thought this in 2016, and as I now believe in groupspeak we must all now follow that line". The reality is that the current "new establishment" view (which is the old establishment with far right policies) is that we must snobbishly follow a far right agenda that feels it has no need to re-consult "the people" on what is now a completely different proposition that people were led to believe they were voting for.
Jut because lunatics take over the asylum, it doesn't mean that the sane people are really mad.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
I really don't know what you are talking about. The Scottish Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with tomorrow's court case.
I would assume it's a reference to the Scottish Executive being booted out of UK/EU negotiations on fisheries etc.
No deal Brexit has all sorts of implications on the Scottish government doing its job. Health care for example is run by it. The courts politically cannot be seen to ignore this as they risk losing their jobs. They will probably set the UK government a set of actions to take which it is unlikely they can comply with.
In Scotland the power of Boris is quickly evaporating and no one here will put their heads over tte parapets to support him. I assume David L is not based in Scotland.
Are you really suggesting that judges should be sacked for making a ruling the Scottish government doesn’t like?
No , he is saying that the Scottish Courts will not just accept that Westminster Government is trampling all over the Scottish Government and devolution as is the current case.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
No. What 'leave' meant in the referendum was unclear, and May's deal satisfied it for many leavers, including many prominent ones on here. It was a typically British compromise. The 2017 Conservative manifesto was mainly about a deal. The Conservative leadership election was infiltrated by entryists, as we saw on here. And the polling is not exactly favourable for no-deal.
So given the potential consequences of a no-deal, I'd say going for one given the above is utterly undemocratic. But at least we know you'll be safe of the consequences, whatever happens.
'Scum' is very constructive when talking about people threatening others for actions they have just done themselves. And those who support them knowing this.
What “leave” meant was very very clear
It meant leave.
Under Article 50 the U.K. and the EU had 2 years to agree a new set of arrangements
They failed
So we leave without a new set of arrangements
(And please don’t attack me personally. Playing the man not the ball is never pleasant)
Don't be ridiculous. It was massively clear that leave meant with a deal. Stop trying to convince yourself. Which ever way we voted, we were lied to by those advocating leave. If you agreed to that but said you still think leaving without a deal is the right thing, that might have a little more resonance.
I agree you shouldn't be attacked personally, but those that hold views for which they collectively will not suffer any consequence should collectively criticised. If you fall into that group, well that is for you to decide.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
I really don't know what you are talking about. The Scottish Parliament has absolutely nothing to do with tomorrow's court case.
I would assume it's a reference to the Scottish Executive being booted out of UK/EU negotiations on fisheries etc.
No deal Brexit has all sorts of implications on the Scottish government doing its job. Health care for example is run by it. The courts politically cannot be seen to ignore this as they risk losing their jobs. They will probably set the UK government a set of actions to take which it is unlikely they can comply with.
In Scotland the power of Boris is quickly evaporating and no one here will put their heads over tte parapets to support him. I assume David L is not based in Scotland.
Are you really suggesting that judges should be sacked for making a ruling the Scottish government doesn’t like?
Yes, that would be like haranguing them and calling them Enemies of the People.
I believe that was the Daily Mail, but the government should have been more vocal in the defence of the courts
Under Article 50 the U.K. and the EU had 2 years to agree a new set of arrangements
They failed
So we leave without a new set of arrangements
(And please don’t attack me personally. Playing the man not the ball is never pleasant)
Neither is lying, Charles.
And you're utterly 100% wrong that what leave meant is clear. It wasn't clear, which is why we're in this mess. Now, if only leavers had sorted this out before the referendum, but if they had, they wouldn't have won.
I (and others) warned about this before the referendum, and it's amusing that so many leavers are still in denial.
It's now also clear that many of them didn't want to because it gave them the opportunity to get power.
There are saints and devils in all of this. I have no doubt that the disruption of no-deal will hurt many people, and the poorest in society in particular. You have chosen your side.
Edit: and I'm actually unsure that pointing out that you'll be immune from the worst consequences of a hard no-deal Brexit is 'attacking' you. Unless you don't like the fact being broadcast.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
It will be implemented by matter of treaty (Scotland will not be a member of the EU)
If the SP wishes to not pass any necessary laws that is a dereliction of their duty
Time the Treaty of Union was revoked, then we do not need to worry about Dictators laws from Westminster
This is the issue dereliction of what duty? The Scots have not voted for Brexit and made it clear they are opposed to no deal. The English Tories are prepared to ignore Parliament but expect the Scots to respect their rules. I rarely agree with Malcolm but in this case is he is right. The Scots can just say and will say no.
Sure, they can put their fingers in their ears
But when they turn up to the ports to export stuff and they don’t have the right paperwork...
Startling claim in Katy Balls’ piece for the Guardian:
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
For example you cannot use the ‘Independent Stop the Bypass Party’ if there was an already registered ‘Stop the Bypass Party’ because ‘Independent’ is being used with the name of an existing registered party.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
No. What 'leave' meant in the referendum was unclear, and May's deal satisfied it for many leavers, including many prominent ones on here. It was a typically British compromise. The 2017 Conservative manifesto was mainly about a deal. The Conservative leadership election was infiltrated by entryists, as we saw on here. And the polling is not exactly favourable for no-deal.
So given the potential consequences of a no-deal, I'd say going for one given the above is utterly undemocratic. But at least we know you'll be safe of the consequences, whatever happens.
'Scum' is very constructive when talking about people threatening others for actions they have just done themselves. And those who support them knowing this.
What “leave” meant was very very clear
It meant leave.
Under Article 50 the U.K. and the EU had 2 years to agree a new set of arrangements
They failed
So we leave without a new set of arrangements
(And please don’t attack me personally. Playing the man not the ball is never pleasant)
Boris Johnson and Michael Gove said we wouldn't need to invoke Article 50. Was it "very very clear" to voters that they were wrong?
Yes, and abandon the whole failed experiment. If Brexit had been introduced as a business initiative then the manager in charge would long have been sacked and the staff made redundant.
Startling claim in Katy Balls’ piece for the Guardian:
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
I doubt you’d be allowed to register as “independent conservatives”.
Why ?
After the "Literal Democrat" cheated the LibDems out of a win, the rules were tightened up, and you can't register a party with a similar name to an existing party. But a sensible way forward would be found.
An interesting question is whether the LibDems and Greens would stand down for them, even if they'd selected candidates (alternative seats might be found, or there's the Lords option). In Broxtowe, LD sources tell me they expect Anna Soubry to stand and they will too because many dislike her personally and think they could win, as will Tories and Brexit and Labour, creating a truly unpredictable 5-way split.
Startling claim in Katy Balls’ piece for the Guardian:
“That idea is so toxic to some would-be rebels that talks are under way for a group of about 20 MPs to form a breakout party and stand as independent Conservatives. Other Tory MPs have lost the will to fight and are considering simply not seeking re-election.”
I doubt you’d be allowed to register as “independent conservatives”.
Why ?
Electoral law?
I'm not wholly convinced electoral law would prevent the formation of a party labelled 'Independent conservatives', but you are of course right that there would likely be insufficient time to register a new party ahead of a snap election.
but would there really be any 'confusion' between Conservative and 'Independent conservative' in the context of current politics ?
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
In what sense are those threatened with deselection "moderates"? Grieve a moderate? He is the most extreme of Europhiles. Ditto Clarke. They snobbishly believe their views top trump those of their voters. They are wrong.
Clarke voted for TM's deal repeatedly. How is he more extreme than the ERG here?
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
It will be implemented by matter of treaty (Scotland will not be a member of the EU)
If the SP wishes to not pass any necessary laws that is a dereliction of their duty
Time the Treaty of Union was revoked, then we do not need to worry about Dictators laws from Westminster
This is the issue dereliction of what duty? The Scots have not voted for Brexit and made it clear they are opposed to no deal. The English Tories are prepared to ignore Parliament but expect the Scots to respect their rules. I rarely agree with Malcolm but in this case is he is right. The Scots can just say and will say no.
Sure, they can put their fingers in their ears
But when they turn up to the ports to export stuff and they don’t have the right paperwork...
Oh, that is alright then. Another "stuff you" from one of the increasingly small minority of people that are still trying to convince themselves self harm was a good idea.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
They are gold-plated, self-seeking hypocrites seeking to impose a policy for which they have no mandate. Most voters supported parties that explicitly rejected No Deal in the 2017 election.
Parliament has rejected all other options
No deal is what remains
Yes, finding a deal is tough. It was always going to be. But the British people have made clear they oppose No Deal. So one has to be found. If it can’t be, the government must explain why and call an election. But the government is not interested in finding a deal. Its most prominent members made that clear in the lobbies earlier this year. And so we are where we are.
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject. The No deal fringe can not be compromised with, and the idea that we should crash the constitution, economy and the union for the benefit of the off shore press and the hedge fund managers is one that only Cummings could find congenial.
I guess that the vast majority of old fashioned, mainstream, conservative Conservatives are as appalled as the rest of us. I would say that we might put our hope in them, but the truth is that these people value party loyalty almost above all else, so I'm not holding my breathe that the Tories will revolt against the catastrophe they are creating before us.
Unless they have the courage of their convictions, then yes indeed, the idea that the Tories have a long term future is not one I would put money on.
As it is, they are sowing the wind and will reap the whirlwind. Cummings, a man who was in contempt of Parliament, has now humiliated the Queen insulted her ministers and demonstrated an arrogance that has seen no equal in an unelected bureaucrat since Thomas Cromwell was beheaded.
What is it with this obsession about hedge fund managers some Remainers have ?
I would have thought the likes of Mark Francois were enough to abuse without bringing in claims about mysterious plutocrat puppet-masters.
The idea Corbyn would reject the chance of a GE is for the birds as even Chuka Umunna has just said on Sky
Even if he got to be Prime Minister? He's heading to lose the next election, isn't it better to roll the dice and hope to get a bounce? He could probably do a good job of de-scarifying himself.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
In a political sense they are scum. They have undermined everything that the Conservative Party used to stand for. They have put a wrecking ball through it, in the same way as Corbyn has put a wrecking ball through Labour. I very much hope that both pay the price of humiliation at some time or other.
What concerns me is if they do de-select the moderates and HYUFD is right. We'd have a party running the country filled to the brim with one-issue yes-men (because they know that arguing with the party means they'll lose their job) and with no moderating influences. Worse, many MPs will be utterly new to politics ad have little standing in the party.
That's almost as bad as a large Corbynite majority, or a Brexit Party one.
In what sense are those threatened with deselection "moderates"? Grieve a moderate? He is the most extreme of Europhiles. Ditto Clarke. They snobbishly believe their views top trump those of their voters. They are wrong.
Clarke voted for TM's deal repeatedly. How is he more extreme than the ERG here?
Under Article 50 the U.K. and the EU had 2 years to agree a new set of arrangements
They failed
So we leave without a new set of arrangements
(And please don’t attack me personally. Playing the man not the ball is never pleasant)
I have a lot of sympathy for this view. We voted to leave we haven't left. That surely can't be right. There was no "how to" on the ballot paper, as we all know and bemoan so leaving with no deal is perfectly legitimate.
However, the 2017 GE changed more than the electoral maths. As we saw in 2015, promises made in a manifesto become null when there is not the mandate, via overall majority, to implement them. Everything is up in the air. Hence the Cons can perfectly well say we are now going to leave with no deal and that would indeed be fulfilling their obligation to govern without an OE (of course they have plenty of those also).
But this whole XX% of MPs voted to leave by supporting their 2017 manifesto is by the same token not true. Those manifestos are now chip paper, rendered irrelevant by events, and each MP is legitimately allowed to decide what they believe in individually or as a group and if that is EUref2, revoke, GE, that is perfectly legitimate.
The idea Corbyn would reject the chance of a GE is for the birds as even Chuka Umunna has just said on Sky
Even if he got to be Prime Minister? He's heading to lose the next election, isn't it better to roll the dice and hope to get a bounce? He could probably do a good job of de-scarifying himself.
The political consensus seems to be that Corbyn has no get out clause from backing a GE
Furthermore it seems that this morning Boris is making the vote one of confidence so lose it I cannot see him doing anything othef than calling a GE
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
Thatcher made a massive u-turn over her original monetarist plan though. And I'm not sure where your idea of a sharp fall in employment comes from, it steadily rose until the mid 80s...
Unemployment fell sharply after the 1981 budget until a second recession in the late 80’s. I checked my memory of this this morning before posting but can’t access the table on my phone.
I think you're mistaken on that, it rose until the mid 80s, then declined in the late 80s whilst still being higher than when she took office. The highest point on record is in 1984 I believe.
Whilst I think the current Con party is splintering, I think maybe half of the existing BXP voters will love the moves towards authoritarianism, and that resistance against will not coalesce. For once, I'm pretty pessimistic and think Johnson might be able to squeak a majority. Where, I'm not sure, but there do seem to be a number of voters who just want action no matter what...
True, but only because they have little idea of what 'what' might be.
Indeed. Boris deliberated trashed the Deal, and stabbed Big G’s beloved Tessy in the back, so that he could install his slovenly frame and his trollop into Downing Street.
The idea Corbyn would reject the chance of a GE is for the birds as even Chuka Umunna has just said on Sky
Even if he got to be Prime Minister? He's heading to lose the next election, isn't it better to roll the dice and hope to get a bounce? He could probably do a good job of de-scarifying himself.
Exactly that - while it's not a great option - 6 months of Labour not doing very much and detoxifying itself would do their chances the world of good.
And Boris as opposition leader would show how useless and impotent he really is.
The idea Corbyn would reject the chance of a GE is for the birds as even Chuka Umunna has just said on Sky
Even if he got to be Prime Minister? He's heading to lose the next election, isn't it better to roll the dice and hope to get a bounce? He could probably do a good job of de-scarifying himself.
The political consensus seems to be that Corbyn has no get out clause from backing a GE
Furthermore it seems that this morning Boris is making the vote one of confidence so lose it I cannot see him doing anything othef than calling a GE
Depends how clever Corbyn’s advisors are.
An election just a few months later represents his best chance of getting into Downing Street.
JRM is going straight to hell. No respite in purgatory for him.
In fairness, I have posed that question on here many times. Leavers seem to regard it as an unfair question as to how many people they are willing passively to send to the slaughter in pursuit of their objective.
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
Thatcher made a massive u-turn over her original monetarist plan though. And I'm not sure where your idea of a sharp fall in employment comes from, it steadily rose until the mid 80s...
Unemployment fell sharply after the 1981 budget until a second recession in the late 80’s. I checked my memory of this this morning before posting but can’t access the table on my phone.
I think you're mistaken on that, it rose until the mid 80s, then declined in the late 80s whilst still being higher than when she took office. The highest point on record is in 1984 I believe.
JRM is going straight to hell. No respite in purgatory for him.
In fairness, I have posed that question on here many times. Leavers seem to regard it as an unfair question as to how many people they are willing passively to send to the slaughter in pursuit of their objective.
You have.
And I must confess I thought it was a hyperbolic point.
Indeed. Boris deliberated trashed the Deal, and stabbed Big G’s beloved Tessy in the back, so that he could install his slovenly frame and his trollop into Downing Street.
And Big G supporting TM deal was correct at the time, still is, and needs to come back as Antoinette Sandbach has just said on Sky
She was a weak, weak PM, taking such advice as she did from idiot advisors.
Things at least look different with Boris.
Because HE's a weak, weak PM, taking advice from a single idiot advisor...
and notoriously lazy and unconcerned with detail to boot. Cummings is running things right now and I think the Conservative Party is going to rue the day they outsourced the running of the country to a maverick.
1. Corbyn as their offering for PM 2. No credible Brexit policy 3. No credible action on anti-semitism
The timing is not exactly propitious. But the only thing that has kept them together has been the end point of a general election. They can hardly flinch from it now.
But the Conservatives are not in much of a better state. Boris et al threatening deselection for voting against the government after their repeated voting against the government on the same issue - sometimes for decades - is hilarious.
The Brexiteres are undemocratic scum. Shame on them, and shame on the once-great Conservative Party for putting such scum in power.
They won a contested referendum
They won a contested leadership election
They have clearly stated that the HoC has the right to no confidence them and put a new government in place
Which bit is “undemocratic ”?
And “scum” is not constructive. They are politicians that you disagree with. That doesn’t make them sub-human.
No. What 'leave' meant in the referendum was unclear, and May's deal satisfied it for many leavers, including many prominent ones on here. It was a typically British compromise. The 2017 Conservative manifesto was mainly about a deal. The Conservative leadership election was infiltrated by entryists, as we saw on here. And the polling is not exactly favourable for no-deal.
So given the potential consequences of a no-deal, I'd say going for one given the above is utterly undemocratic. But at least we know you'll be safe of the consequences, whatever happens.
'Scum' is very constructive when talking about people threatening others for actions they have just done themselves. And those who support them knowing this.
What “leave” meant was very very clear
It meant leave.
Under Article 50 the U.K. and the EU had 2 years to agree a new set of arrangements
They failed
So we leave without a new set of arrangements
(And please don’t attack me personally. Playing the man not the ball is never pleasant)
JRM is going straight to hell. No respite in purgatory for him.
In fairness, I have posed that question on here many times. Leavers seem to regard it as an unfair question as to how many people they are willing passively to send to the slaughter in pursuit of their objective.
@HYUFD told us last night that there is no price too high.
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
Thatcher made a massive u-turn over her original monetarist plan though. And I'm not sure where your idea of a sharp fall in employment comes from, it steadily rose until the mid 80s...
Unemployment fell sharply after the 1981 budget until a second recession in the late 80’s. I checked my memory of this this morning before posting but can’t access the table on my phone.
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
That doesn't make it right. The EU was a central policy under Major, but the bastards still repeatedly voted against Major and the party.
And I hope that Johnson and his fellow bastards don't have a government soon, either.
And the likes of IDS and Bill Cash should have been kicked out. The Conservative party would have been stronger for it. We might even have got Ken Clarke as PM.
She was a weak, weak PM, taking such advice as she did from idiot advisors.
Things at least look different with Boris.
Because HE's a weak, weak PM, taking advice from a single idiot advisor...
and notoriously lazy and unconcerned with detail to boot. Cummings is running things right now and I think the Conservative Party is going to rue the day they outsourced the running of the country to a maverick.
Everyone already knew that before the leadership election.
The blue- rinsers are going to reap what they've sowed.
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
Thatcher made a massive u-turn over her original monetarist plan though. And I'm not sure where your idea of a sharp fall in employment comes from, it steadily rose until the mid 80s...
Unemployment fell sharply after the 1981 budget until a second recession in the late 80’s. I checked my memory of this this morning before posting but can’t access the table on my phone.
I think you're mistaken on that, it rose until the mid 80s, then declined in the late 80s whilst still being higher than when she took office. The highest point on record is in 1984 I believe.
I wonder what Mr O'Hara would have written about Howe's 1981 budget? Surely there was a party throwing itself off the cliff in the mad pursuit of monetarism, against the advice of the famous 364 economists, with an MP crossing the floor and others walking out, dooming itself to never winning an election again or at best squeaking through one election on the back of divided opposition before its inevitable and final annihilation?
What happened instead was the underlying inflation that had so dogged our economic performance for more than a decade was finally brought under control and unemployment fell sharply rather than the increase forecast. The ground was set for strong future economic growth and a new consensus was created that remained in place until the latter days of Brown's hubris.
So let it be with Brexit. If we leave (and it is still not certain) there will be a new consensus and all to play for.
Thatcher made a massive u-turn over her original monetarist plan though. And I'm not sure where your idea of a sharp fall in employment comes from, it steadily rose until the mid 80s...
Unemployment fell sharply after the 1981 budget until a second recession in the late 80’s. I checked my memory of this this morning before posting but can’t access the table on my phone.
I think you're mistaken on that, it rose until the mid 80s, then declined in the late 80s whilst still being higher than when she took office. The highest point on record is in 1984 I believe.
The idea Corbyn would reject the chance of a GE is for the birds as even Chuka Umunna has just said on Sky
Even if he got to be Prime Minister? He's heading to lose the next election, isn't it better to roll the dice and hope to get a bounce? He could probably do a good job of de-scarifying himself.
The political consensus seems to be that Corbyn has no get out clause from backing a GE
Furthermore it seems that this morning Boris is making the vote one of confidence so lose it I cannot see him doing anything othef than calling a GE
He certainly does have a get out clause from a GE whose timing would lead to No Deal (e.g. Nov 1st)
Any moves to install anyone as PM without a GE will result in uproar in the public
An administration of Labour + Lib Dem represents a larger share of the popular vote than a Conservative + DUP one.
If so it has to be tested in a GE
Technically they won a higher percentage of the popular vote at the last election compared to the DUP and Tory party. If they also have more votes in Parliament they deserve a chance of Government as that is the purpose of the FTPA.
Just because you don't like an argument when it's used against you doesn't invalidate the argument.
I think a lot is going to develop this week. There are a lot of "known unknowns" and maybe a couple of "unknown unknowns" which will reveal themselves before next Monday. While lots of posters here (including me) like to hypothecate over the different scenarios, I can see that many posts are going to look very outdated very quickly.
I agree and in Scotland it is even more complex. I cannot see the Scottish courts allowing Boris to run roughshod over the Scottish parliament. This will create a scenario where there is almost no way to implement no deal in Scotland. The country is almost fully united in not agreeing with the English Tory plan. Even the Scottish tories.
Some Scottish and N Irish backstop is my initial thought as where we are heading but who knows
It will be implemented by matter of treaty (Scotland will not be a member of the EU)
If the SP wishes to not pass any necessary laws that is a dereliction of their duty
Time the Treaty of Union was revoked, then we do not need to worry about Dictators laws from Westminster
This is the issue dereliction of what duty? The Scots have not voted for Brexit and made it clear they are opposed to no deal. The English Tories are prepared to ignore Parliament but expect the Scots to respect their rules. I rarely agree with Malcolm but in this case is he is right. The Scots can just say and will say no.
Sure, they can put their fingers in their ears
But when they turn up to the ports to export stuff and they don’t have the right paperwork...
No its not, its the action of party discipline. If the Tories are not going to be perpetually in office but not in power they need to take these steps. The fact that May wimped out of taking them when she was in charge does not make it any less necessary.
No, it really isn't. It's turning the Conservatives from a broad church to a narrowly-focused, one-issue campaign group - and one that I hope will soon be flushed down the sewer of history.
I mean, the idea that Bone or JRM are more fit to be Conservative MP's than (say) Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart is laughable. Worse, one Brexit is over, the moderate voices will be gone, to be replaced with people with only one mindset. And given this act, they will all be yes-men and yes-women (if women are allowed in, that is).
The Conservative Party will become a right-wing cesspit. The warning signs are already there, with good honourable members leaving (including some on here). The odds are the voters will follow.
You might want to consider that 'discipline' is a rather loaded word.
I am all in favour of broad churches on everything that is not central to your policy. But if you are to stand as a Conservative MP in a Conservative seat you need to support that central policy with your votes even if you try to temper it behind the scenes or argue for a change of direction. Otherwise you have no government as May demonstrated per adventure.
That doesn't make it right. The EU was a central policy under Major, but the bastards still repeatedly voted against Major and the party.
And I hope that Johnson and his fellow bastards don't have a government soon, either.
And the likes of IDS and Bill Cash should have been kicked out. The Conservative party would have been stronger for it. We might even have got Ken Clarke as PM.
Would you care to point out where you said that before (say) a year ago?
Comments
As with Johnson (and Corbyn for that matter), this isn't really about Brexit. It's about getting power.
It meant leave.
Under Article 50 the U.K. and the EU had 2 years to agree a new set of arrangements
They failed
So we leave without a new set of arrangements
(And please don’t attack me personally. Playing the man not the ball is never pleasant)
Revoke is what remains
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment/timeseries/mgsc/unem
Any moves to install anyone as PM without a GE will result in uproar in the public as demonstrared by the dreadful figures for alternative PM with Corbyn on 12% Swinson on 11% and even Farage on 11%
The idea Corbyn would reject the chance of a GE is for the birds as even Chuka Umunna has just said on Sky
A novel idea was put forward last night that any extension would be put to the EU Council in mid October and then as a member Boris would veto it.
You really cannot make a lot of this chaos up
I agree you shouldn't be attacked personally, but those that hold views for which they collectively will not suffer any consequence should collectively criticised. If you fall into that group, well that is for you to decide.
And you're utterly 100% wrong that what leave meant is clear. It wasn't clear, which is why we're in this mess. Now, if only leavers had sorted this out before the referendum, but if they had, they wouldn't have won.
I (and others) warned about this before the referendum, and it's amusing that so many leavers are still in denial.
It's now also clear that many of them didn't want to because it gave them the opportunity to get power.
There are saints and devils in all of this. I have no doubt that the disruption of no-deal will hurt many people, and the poorest in society in particular. You have chosen your side.
Edit: and I'm actually unsure that pointing out that you'll be immune from the worst consequences of a hard no-deal Brexit is 'attacking' you. Unless you don't like the fact being broadcast.
But when they turn up to the ports to export stuff and they don’t have the right paperwork...
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/media/5134
An interesting question is whether the LibDems and Greens would stand down for them, even if they'd selected candidates (alternative seats might be found, or there's the Lords option). In Broxtowe, LD sources tell me they expect Anna Soubry to stand and they will too because many dislike her personally and think they could win, as will Tories and Brexit and Labour, creating a truly unpredictable 5-way split.
but would there really be any 'confusion' between Conservative and 'Independent conservative' in the context of current politics ?
I would have thought the likes of Mark Francois were enough to abuse without bringing in claims about mysterious plutocrat puppet-masters.
I assume if the whip is withdrawn any letter to the chair of the 1922 committee is invalid?
However, the 2017 GE changed more than the electoral maths. As we saw in 2015, promises made in a manifesto become null when there is not the mandate, via overall majority, to implement them. Everything is up in the air. Hence the Cons can perfectly well say we are now going to leave with no deal and that would indeed be fulfilling their obligation to govern without an OE (of course they have plenty of those also).
But this whole XX% of MPs voted to leave by supporting their 2017 manifesto is by the same token not true. Those manifestos are now chip paper, rendered irrelevant by events, and each MP is legitimately allowed to decide what they believe in individually or as a group and if that is EUref2, revoke, GE, that is perfectly legitimate.
https://twitter.com/jamescleverly/status/1144516063687774214?s=21
Furthermore it seems that this morning Boris is making the vote one of confidence so lose it I cannot see him doing anything othef than calling a GE
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1168433557196431360
https://twitter.com/theousherwood/status/1168434092611911681
And Boris as opposition leader would show how useless and impotent he really is.
An election just a few months later represents his best chance of getting into Downing Street.
No respite in purgatory for him.
Even a Corbyn government might be the price worth paying.
https://twitter.com/journodave/status/1168437090410999813
JRM handwaving away the forthcoming deaths of the ill, or Gavin Williamson re-iterating that government may refuse to obey laws passed by Parliament?
And perhaps its a good thing that our failed establishment is finally exposed.
And I must confess I thought it was a hyperbolic point.
I was wrong.
Leave means Leave.
Listen to yourself. There are clues here.
Though the Brexiteers are 'barking'
https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1168415182437179392
The blue- rinsers are going to reap what they've sowed.
IIRC they were only 2% ahead in the 1980 local elections and 3% ahead in 1981.
If they also have more votes in Parliament they deserve a chance of Government as that is the purpose of the FTPA.
Just because you don't like an argument when it's used against you doesn't invalidate the argument.