This week's Tory conference features a lineup of corporate ghouls - from arms industry lobbyists to gig economy scammers and public service privatisers - rubbing shoulders with government ministers. Guests at this year's Tory conference: disability assessors Atos, who've driven thousands into destitution; Raytheon, whose British-made bombs massacre in Yemen; and Deliveroo, whose entire business model is based on bogus self-employment. That's who this government represents.
The Cayman Islands tax avoidance stall more than any of the above says it all.
Good leaders' speeches are those which get the delegates clapping and enthusiastic, despite telling them truths they don't want to hear: think Kinnock 1985, or Blair any time, or Cameron's 2005 speech which won him the leadership.
Boris has simply told delegates what they want to hear. He does it amusingly. But that's all.
Having seen that speech I think that Boris would make one of the best after dinner speeches one is likely to hear, but I suspect he maybe torn apart in a leaders debate. Having said that I can't visualise Corbyn in a leaders debate either.
I don't think there will be a leader's debate.
Like them or loathe them, they are now a fixture.
Bozo will be empty chaired if he doesn't show, as he was in the Tory leadership ones.
It will be interesting to see people try to contort themselves into a position to argue that Swinson should be in any such debates, unless it is a free for all involving every other party
Opinion polls and Euro/local election results are factors the broadcasters are able to take into consideration.
How many of those listening to Boris's speech who were previously saying they wanted to vote Brexit Party will still be doing so?
Well, Farage still of course. But I suspect it pressed many, many of the BXP voters' buttons. If so, a 40:20:20 result will be a bloodbath for Labour.
And leave the LibDems puffed-up, self-important non-entities.....
Again.
Finding it really hard to see a way forward for the Brexit Party now.If Boris delivers a deal he will get huge cudos that will outweigh the criticism that the deal is crap.If he doesn't he will either become a brexit martyr or will probably be forgiven by blaming the blockers .
Elections are very unpredictable things as the 2017 election showed and you can easily imagine a Lib/Lab Government.Would such a Government abolish private schools? Who knows and why take the risk?
No, anyone who understands anything about politics, there's no risk
Just this minute taken a call from Tulip Sadiq's office. Chap called Duncan who said they are expecting an election this year and would I be prepared to do some canvassing? I said yes - you just try and stop me.
Something to bear in mind when the odds on Hampstead & Kilburn become available.
Having seen that speech I think that Boris would make one of the best after dinner speeches one is likely to hear, but I suspect he maybe torn apart in a leaders debate. Having said that I can't visualise Corbyn in a leaders debate either.
I don't think there will be a leader's debate.
Like them or loathe them, they are now a fixture.
Bozo will be empty chaired if he doesn't show, as he was in the Tory leadership ones.
It will be interesting to see people try to contort themselves into a position to argue that Swinson should be in any such debates, unless it is a free for all involving every other party
Opinion polls and Euro/local election results are factors the broadcasters are able to take into consideration.
The main factor is performance at the two previous General Elections.
By suggesting Brexit is a cancer on this country, I think you are confusing the cause with the symptom. It is the causes of Brexit that are the cancer. As yet there seem to very few suggestions for treating the causes.
The cause is our semi-detached relationship. The cure is to join the Euro.
I agree the semidetached relationship is a major (but by no means the only) cause. Fully in is far preferable to revoke to where we were.
Being half in gives you the same problems as being fully in. Better a clean withdrawal.
Having seen that speech I think that Boris would make one of the best after dinner speeches one is likely to hear, but I suspect he maybe torn apart in a leaders debate. Having said that I can't visualise Corbyn in a leaders debate either.
I don't think there will be a leader's debate.
Like them or loathe them, they are now a fixture.
Bozo will be empty chaired if he doesn't show, as he was in the Tory leadership ones.
It will be interesting to see people try to contort themselves into a position to argue that Swinson should be in any such debates, unless it is a free for all involving every other party
Opinion polls and Euro/local election results are factors the broadcasters are able to take into consideration.
They weren't when UKIP were polling in the 20s in 2015. But I understand the progressive mantra of the rules being different for "good" people
Elections are very unpredictable things as the 2017 election showed and you can easily imagine a Lib/Lab Government.Would such a Government abolish private schools? Who knows and why take the risk?
No, anyone who understands anything about politics, there's no risk
You have a crystal ball telling you what is in the coalition government manifesto do you? In any event you only need to raise the prospect on the doorstep and that will be enough.
This week's Tory conference features a lineup of corporate ghouls - from arms industry lobbyists to gig economy scammers and public service privatisers - rubbing shoulders with government ministers. Guests at this year's Tory conference: disability assessors Atos, who've driven thousands into destitution; Raytheon, whose British-made bombs massacre in Yemen; and Deliveroo, whose entire business model is based on bogus self-employment. That's who this government represents.
The Cayman Islands tax avoidance stall more than any of the above says it all.
Were Ajnad al-Khilafah at the Labour Party conference?
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
Good leaders' speeches are those which get the delegates clapping and enthusiastic, despite telling them truths they don't want to hear: think Kinnock 1985, or Blair any time, or Cameron's 2005 speech which won him the leadership.
Boris has simply told delegates what they want to hear. He does it amusingly. But that's all.
Sorry but that is garbage. Blair's speeches weren't consistently telling delegates what they don't want to hear as for the other examples . . .
Kinnock 1985 and Cameron 2005 were both in opposition and not long from major defeats, years before a new election was due, where the opposition needed a rebuilding process to get it ready for opposition let alone governance.
This isn't a start of a rebuild speech, this is a potential pre-General Election speech and needs to be viewed in that context. So for Kinnock the relevant comparison would be eg the Sheffield Rally and I think today was much smarter than that!
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
He's good at the wordsmithy, funny stuff and it was at least positive and optimistic. He can only really look a week ahead at a time given Brexit and the parliament mission to oust him, so it did an adequate holding job. It keeps the party happy and on side and offers some self-belief that a Brexit deal isn't surmountable.
Certainly A LOT more listenable than Theresa May's miserable, turgid efforts.
Elections are very unpredictable things as the 2017 election showed and you can easily imagine a Lib/Lab Government.Would such a Government abolish private schools? Who knows and why take the risk?
No, anyone who understands anything about politics, there's no risk
You have a crystal ball telling you what is in the coalition government manifesto do you? In any event you only need to raise the prospect on the doorstep and that will be enough.
It's unlikely that the LibDems would want another coalition for ovious reasons. Any C&S arrangement would mean Labour's more extreme policies being voted down.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
"If there's a deal, free movement will continue"
Really?
May's agreement with the EU didn't mean free movement continued
It is part of Boris' charm that he was 100% aware that it was he who made the comment.
Yes. Charming people can turn what in others would be something to be sheepish about - e.g. a track record of lying or talking utter bollox - into some sort of perverse selling point.
This is why charm, if combined with a lack of scruple, can be very dangerous.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
"If there's a deal, free movement will continue"
Really?
May's agreement with the EU didn't mean free movement continued
Yes it did. Nothing changed during an extensible transition and nothing was finalised about the future relationship.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
Come again?
Free movement ending has already been accepted by the EU in May's deal, why would it continue under a Boris deal?
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
If it looks ok on freedom of movement being controlled,external trade deals happening ,fishing quotas improved etc most people are not going to get too excited about other constraints I fancy.They are just going to be delighted we have finally left.
By suggesting Brexit is a cancer on this country, I think you are confusing the cause with the symptom. It is the causes of Brexit that are the cancer. As yet there seem to very few suggestions for treating the causes.
The cause is our semi-detached relationship. The cure is to join the Euro.
I agree the semidetached relationship is a major (but by no means the only) cause. Fully in is far preferable to revoke to where we were.
Being half in gives you the same problems as being fully in. Better a clean withdrawal.
Half in and all in give different problems. We know half in is a fractious position, all in would, I believe, be better.
Our two best options are all in or all out. All options are in some way suboptimal.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
"If there's a deal, free movement will continue"
Really?
May's agreement with the EU didn't mean free movement continued
Yes it did. Nothing changed during an extensible transition and nothing was finalised about the future relationship.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
Come again?
Free movement ending has already been accepted by the EU in May's deal, why would it continue under a Boris deal?
The transition is a total standstill. Free movement does not end under it. As for the future relationship, that depends on trade offs that have yet to be made. Johnson has now accepted the principle of a standstill transition, having previously described it as an unacceptable 'vassal state' status.
It will be interesting to see what the parties will have in their election manifestos if Brexit happens.
I think rejoin would be a bad mistake as I don’t think the public including some Remainers like myself would be in the mood to have years more acrimony and division .
I’d vote for the party that promises the closest EU links but not that interested in voting to rejoin.
At some point in the future perhaps that will happen , much depends on how Brexit goes.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
Come again?
Free movement ending has already been accepted by the EU in May's deal, why would it continue under a Boris deal?
The transition is a total standstill. Free movement does not end under it. As for the future relationship, that depends on trade offs that have yet to be made. Johnson has now accepted the principle of a standstill transition, having previously described it as an unacceptable 'vassal state' status.
Better to be out with the same conditions, than in, as I have said all along.
This week's Tory conference features a lineup of corporate ghouls - from arms industry lobbyists to gig economy scammers and public service privatisers - rubbing shoulders with government ministers. Guests at this year's Tory conference: disability assessors Atos, who've driven thousands into destitution; Raytheon, whose British-made bombs massacre in Yemen; and Deliveroo, whose entire business model is based on bogus self-employment. That's who this government represents.
The Cayman Islands tax avoidance stall more than any of the above says it all.
I lived for 5 years in the village of Thames Ditton which falls into Raabs seat so know the area well..
I think it will be very close next time with the LDs doing very well indeed.. I do think Raab will hold on only because the Tory vote across this area is very tribal and I think will be quite difficult to get to switch at at GE. This area also has very few naturally brexit party inclined voters which will see a below average tory to brexit bleed which should help Raab too..
Interestingly I imagine the huge houses in Esher and Thames Ditton which have always been the backbone of the Tory vote here will be the ones switching to the LDs and the less affluent areas (though only by E&W standards) of Walton on Thames and Long Ditton will be the ones to be more loyal and save Raab
The area around Thames Ditton , Hinchley Wood has always been more strongly pro Lib Dem than other parts like Oxshott and Cobham where the Tory vote is weighed.These parts which also have huge houses will stay loyal to Raab.
Aligns with my experience in Epping, the biggest houses now are often LD, certainly locally, the semis tend to be Tory and the poorest parts and the social housing are Labour still but pro Brexit and so more Tory than they were
It is one thing when you can dabble in a local election. If you live in a £2million house and send your kids to private school you will think twice about risking that in a General Election where the main challenger wants to abolish your kid's school and take your house from you.
That assumes LAB will be the main challenger
Or it assumes that the LibDem candidate is less than categorical that they won't support a Corbyn govt.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
If it looks ok on freedom of movement being controlled,external trade deals happening ,fishing quotas improved etc most people are not going to get too excited about other constraints I fancy.They are just going to be delighted we have finally left.
None of that will happen though. We will still be in the EU in all but name until the transition ends.
Good leaders' speeches are those which get the delegates clapping and enthusiastic, despite telling them truths they don't want to hear: think Kinnock 1985, or Blair any time, or Cameron's 2005 speech which won him the leadership.
Boris has simply told delegates what they want to hear. He does it amusingly. But that's all.
Sorry but that is garbage. Blair's speeches weren't consistently telling delegates what they don't want to hear as for the other examples . . .
Kinnock 1985 and Cameron 2005 were both in opposition and not long from major defeats, years before a new election was due, where the opposition needed a rebuilding process to get it ready for opposition let alone governance.
This isn't a start of a rebuild speech, this is a potential pre-General Election speech and needs to be viewed in that context. So for Kinnock the relevant comparison would be eg the Sheffield Rally and I think today was much smarter than that!
You have a point that it depends on the context, but I'd argue that this is a rebuild moment (or should be). The party has mislaid a majority, has sacked 21 MPs including multiple distinguished ex-Cabinet ministers, is hamstrung in parliament, faces a highly polarised population, and is still hunting unicorns rather than addressing any of this.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
Come again?
Free movement ending has already been accepted by the EU in May's deal, why would it continue under a Boris deal?
The transition is a total standstill. Free movement does not end under it. As for the future relationship, that depends on trade offs that have yet to be made. Johnson has now accepted the principle of a standstill transition, having previously described it as an unacceptable 'vassal state' status.
Hence transition. That's not the end point. I'm cool with that and I think anyone sensible would be too.
Boris didn't call a transition vassal status AFAIK. The backstop with no exit was.
Stephen hammond of the 21 will vote against a Corbyn govt. Corbyn does not have the numbers
He is a No Deal enabler then.
Nobody else gets over 100
Corbyn gets over 300 with LDs on board.
But what if Corbyn is voted down and then someone like Margaret Beckett gets put forward? Would Labour not back her considering Corbyns chance is already over? If Labour didn't, that would make them a no deal enabling party as well.
Swinson can veto Corbyn because he will be the first person put forward, she then kicks the ball over to him, and if he vetoes beckett\Clarke etc, both he and the LDs could be accused of no deal enabling.
Hang on, has Dominic Raab at PMQs let slip a hint of the most explosive political story of the year and biggest comeback in history?
Abbott later said: “Whether it’s women members in this house, women claiming benefits, women’s reproductive rights in Northern Ireland, and the failure to support women workers at Thomas Cook, isn’t this a government letting women down?”
Raab replied: “On this side of the house we’re proud to be on our second female prime minister.”
Elections are very unpredictable things as the 2017 election showed and you can easily imagine a Lib/Lab Government.Would such a Government abolish private schools? Who knows and why take the risk?
No, anyone who understands anything about politics, there's no risk
You have a crystal ball telling you what is in the coalition government manifesto do you? In any event you only need to raise the prospect on the doorstep and that will be enough.
It's unlikely that the LibDems would want another coalition for ovious reasons. Any C&S arrangement would mean Labour's more extreme policies being voted down.
One thing that all these shenanigans in Parliament with MPs defecting,cross party collusion,talk of GNUs etc has made clear is that you can rule absolutely nothing out any more.How strong the LDs bargaining position would be would depend on the Mp numbers and we have seen before over student fees that they are prepared to sell out their principles for government. In any event I am not sure which of Labour's policies they regard as extreme.
Good leaders' speeches are those which get the delegates clapping and enthusiastic, despite telling them truths they don't want to hear: think Kinnock 1985, or Blair any time, or Cameron's 2005 speech which won him the leadership.
Boris has simply told delegates what they want to hear. He does it amusingly. But that's all.
Sorry but that is garbage. Blair's speeches weren't consistently telling delegates what they don't want to hear as for the other examples . . .
Kinnock 1985 and Cameron 2005 were both in opposition and not long from major defeats, years before a new election was due, where the opposition needed a rebuilding process to get it ready for opposition let alone governance.
This isn't a start of a rebuild speech, this is a potential pre-General Election speech and needs to be viewed in that context. So for Kinnock the relevant comparison would be eg the Sheffield Rally and I think today was much smarter than that!
You have a point that it depends on the context, but I'd argue that this is a rebuild moment (or should be). The party has mislaid a majority, has sacked 21 MPs including multiple distinguished ex-Cabinet ministers, is hamstrung in parliament, faces a highly polarised population, and is still hunting unicorns rather than addressing any of this.
The party hasn't mislaid a majority it didn't have one. Simply pretending there's a majority then letting everyone ignore the whip and do what they want isn't smart management it is living in denial.
The party isn't hunting unicorns it is hunting voters. Get a real majority at an election and all your other concerns are dealt with.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
Come again?
Free movement ending has already been accepted by the EU in May's deal, why would it continue under a Boris deal?
The transition is a total standstill. Free movement does not end under it. As for the future relationship, that depends on trade offs that have yet to be made. Johnson has now accepted the principle of a standstill transition, having previously described it as an unacceptable 'vassal state' status.
Hence transition. That's not the end point. I'm cool with that and I think anyone sensible would be too.
Boris didn't call a transition vassal status AFAIK. The backstop with no exit was.
It was certainly described that way by Rees-Mogg. Johnson was perhaps more ambiguous.
Hang on Boz - if this is a "Get Brexit Done" fund, and we can't have an election (for which the funds will be used) before Oct 31, then isn't this quite an admission?
Good leaders' speeches are those which get the delegates clapping and enthusiastic, despite telling them truths they don't want to hear: think Kinnock 1985, or Blair any time, or Cameron's 2005 speech which won him the leadership.
Boris has simply told delegates what they want to hear. He does it amusingly. But that's all.
Sorry but that is garbage. Blair's speeches weren't consistently telling delegates what they don't want to hear as for the other examples . . .
Kinnock 1985 and Cameron 2005 were both in opposition and not long from major defeats, years before a new election was due, where the opposition needed a rebuilding process to get it ready for opposition let alone governance.
This isn't a start of a rebuild speech, this is a potential pre-General Election speech and needs to be viewed in that context. So for Kinnock the relevant comparison would be eg the Sheffield Rally and I think today was much smarter than that!
You have a point that it depends on the context, but I'd argue that this is a rebuild moment (or should be). The party has mislaid a majority, has sacked 21 MPs including multiple distinguished ex-Cabinet ministers, is hamstrung in parliament, faces a highly polarised population, and is still hunting unicorns rather than addressing any of this.
The party hasn't mislaid a majority it didn't have one. Simply pretending there's a majority then letting everyone ignore the whip and do what they want isn't smart management it is living in denial.
The party isn't hunting unicorns it is hunting voters. Get a real majority at an election and all your other concerns are dealt with.
Bad jokes and telling a self-selected set of delegates simplistic nonsense that they want to hear, having driven out the sensible voices, won't necessarily win back the majority the party had less than three years ago.
How many of those listening to Boris's speech who were previously saying they wanted to vote Brexit Party will still be doing so?
Well, Farage still of course. But I suspect it pressed many, many of the BXP voters' buttons. If so, a 40:20:20 result will be a bloodbath for Labour.
And leave the LibDems puffed-up, self-important non-entities.....
Again.
Finding it really hard to see a way forward for the Brexit Party now.If Boris delivers a deal he will get huge cudos that will outweigh the criticism that the deal is crap.If he doesn't he will either become a brexit martyr or will probably be forgiven by blaming the blockers .
There is no deal that Johnson can deliver that the ERG can possibly support, let alone the BXP, because it willl have had to have been agreed by the EU first. And any deal the EU agrees to is, by definition, not one either the ERG or BXP will back.
Hang on Boz - if this is a "Get Brexit Done" fund, and we can't have an election (for which the funds will be used) before Oct 31, then isn't this quite an admission?
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
If it looks ok on freedom of movement being controlled,external trade deals happening ,fishing quotas improved etc most people are not going to get too excited about other constraints I fancy.They are just going to be delighted we have finally left.
None of that will happen though. We will still be in the EU in all but name until the transition ends.
Stephen hammond of the 21 will vote against a Corbyn govt. Corbyn does not have the numbers
He is a No Deal enabler then.
Nobody else gets over 100
Corbyn gets over 300 with LDs on board.
But what if Corbyn is voted down and then someone like Margaret Beckett gets put forward? Would Labour not back her considering Corbyns chance is already over? If Labour didn't, that would make them a no deal enabling party as well.
Swinson can veto Corbyn because he will be the first person put forward, she then kicks the ball over to him, and if he vetoes beckett\Clarke etc, both he and the LDs could be accused of no deal enabling.
55 Lab MPs are leavers and will not back Beckett Clarke or anyone who is not HM LOTO
How many of those listening to Boris's speech who were previously saying they wanted to vote Brexit Party will still be doing so?
Well, Farage still of course. But I suspect it pressed many, many of the BXP voters' buttons. If so, a 40:20:20 result will be a bloodbath for Labour.
And leave the LibDems puffed-up, self-important non-entities.....
Again.
Finding it really hard to see a way forward for the Brexit Party now.If Boris delivers a deal he will get huge cudos that will outweigh the criticism that the deal is crap.If he doesn't he will either become a brexit martyr or will probably be forgiven by blaming the blockers .
There is no deal that Johnson can deliver that the ERG can possibly support, let alone the BXP, because it willl have had to have been agreed by the EU first. And any deal the EU agrees to is, by definition, not one either the ERG or BXP will back.
Obviously the BXP won't back it.I think Baker and Francois ( which presumably brings most of the rest of the ERG) would also seem to be saying they will today if it reflects what Boris seems to be proposing.
Stephen hammond of the 21 will vote against a Corbyn govt. Corbyn does not have the numbers
He is a No Deal enabler then.
Nobody else gets over 100
Corbyn gets over 300 with LDs on board.
But what if Corbyn is voted down and then someone like Margaret Beckett gets put forward? Would Labour not back her considering Corbyns chance is already over? If Labour didn't, that would make them a no deal enabling party as well.
Swinson can veto Corbyn because he will be the first person put forward, she then kicks the ball over to him, and if he vetoes beckett\Clarke etc, both he and the LDs could be accused of no deal enabling.
55 Lab MPs are leavers and will not back Beckett Clarke or anyone who is not HM LOTO
And the rest of the House of Commons, including former Labour MP's, who are relatively sane and with functioning brain cells won't support the bit-thick Communist.
Hang on Boz - if this is a "Get Brexit Done" fund, and we can't have an election (for which the funds will be used) before Oct 31, then isn't this quite an admission?
Good leaders' speeches are those which get the delegates clapping and enthusiastic, despite telling them truths they don't want to hear: think Kinnock 1985, or Blair any time, or Cameron's 2005 speech which won him the leadership.
Boris has simply told delegates what they want to hear. He does it amusingly. But that's all.
Sorry but that is garbage. Blair's speeches weren't consistently telling delegates what they don't want to hear as for the other examples . . .
Kinnock 1985 and Cameron 2005 were both in opposition and not long from major defeats, years before a new election was due, where the opposition needed a rebuilding process to get it ready for opposition let alone governance.
This isn't a start of a rebuild speech, this is a potential pre-General Election speech and needs to be viewed in that context. So for Kinnock the relevant comparison would be eg the Sheffield Rally and I think today was much smarter than that!
You have a point that it depends on the context, but I'd argue that this is a rebuild moment (or should be). The party has mislaid a majority, has sacked 21 MPs including multiple distinguished ex-Cabinet ministers, is hamstrung in parliament, faces a highly polarised population, and is still hunting unicorns rather than addressing any of this.
The party hasn't mislaid a majority it didn't have one. Simply pretending there's a majority then letting everyone ignore the whip and do what they want isn't smart management it is living in denial.
The party isn't hunting unicorns it is hunting voters. Get a real majority at an election and all your other concerns are dealt with.
Bad jokes and telling a self-selected set of delegates simplistic nonsense that they want to hear, having driven out the sensible voices, won't necessarily win back the majority the party had less than three years ago.
As long as there is Corbyn the Tories will win most seats and have a very decent chance to get a majority. The coud well do it with a vote share close to the 1997 one.
Stephen hammond of the 21 will vote against a Corbyn govt. Corbyn does not have the numbers
He is a No Deal enabler then.
Nobody else gets over 100
Corbyn gets over 300 with LDs on board.
But what if Corbyn is voted down and then someone like Margaret Beckett gets put forward? Would Labour not back her considering Corbyns chance is already over? If Labour didn't, that would make them a no deal enabling party as well.
Swinson can veto Corbyn because he will be the first person put forward, she then kicks the ball over to him, and if he vetoes beckett\Clarke etc, both he and the LDs could be accused of no deal enabling.
55 Lab MPs are leavers and will not back Beckett Clarke or anyone who is not HM LOTO
Please can we not have another round of number crunching like we had all afternoon yesterday. I don't think Corbyn has or ever will have the numbers but let's be honest we don't really know as there are emotions at play here so could go either way and people could suprise us..
Elections are very unpredictable things as the 2017 election showed and you can easily imagine a Lib/Lab Government.Would such a Government abolish private schools? Who knows and why take the risk?
No, anyone who understands anything about politics, there's no risk
You have a crystal ball telling you what is in the coalition government manifesto do you? In any event you only need to raise the prospect on the doorstep and that will be enough.
It's unlikely that the LibDems would want another coalition for ovious reasons. Any C&S arrangement would mean Labour's more extreme policies being voted down.
One thing that all these shenanigans in Parliament with MPs defecting,cross party collusion,talk of GNUs etc has made clear is that you can rule absolutely nothing out any more.How strong the LDs bargaining position would be would depend on the Mp numbers and we have seen before over student fees that they are prepared to sell out their principles for government. In any event I am not sure which of Labour's policies they regard as extreme.
I still find the "Lib Dem sell-out" meme a bit unthinking (apparently unusually for someone not on their frontbench team ).
They held about one in seven of the seats in a coalition. Therefore they were going to get little more than one in seven of the sweeties - and be expected to unwrap the other six and pop them in Daddy Cameron's mouth.
I don't see Cameron being accused of "selling out Tory principles" by legalising gay marriage or holding a referendum on changing the FPTP voting system (though I concede he might if he lost that one too!)
Given what's gone since, I'd say there's prima facie evidence of the LibDems being quite a moderating influence on the 2010 Tory administration. And what's the point of even existing as a minor party if you don't want to hold power in some form.
So. I think their coolness on a coalition will ease somewhat at 10.05pm on election night if the exit poll says the right things. Mind you.. I still think there's an interesting space to be explored between "won't do a deal with Corbyn or Johnson" (which they've said) and "won't do a deal with Lab or Con" (which I don't think they have).
How many of those listening to Boris's speech who were previously saying they wanted to vote Brexit Party will still be doing so?
Well, Farage still of course. But I suspect it pressed many, many of the BXP voters' buttons. If so, a 40:20:20 result will be a bloodbath for Labour.
And leave the LibDems puffed-up, self-important non-entities.....
Again.
Finding it really hard to see a way forward for the Brexit Party now.If Boris delivers a deal he will get huge cudos that will outweigh the criticism that the deal is crap.If he doesn't he will either become a brexit martyr or will probably be forgiven by blaming the blockers .
There is no deal that Johnson can deliver that the ERG can possibly support, let alone the BXP, because it willl have had to have been agreed by the EU first. And any deal the EU agrees to is, by definition, not one either the ERG or BXP will back.
Obviously the BXP won't back it.I think Baker and Francois ( which presumably brings most of the rest of the ERG) would also seem to be saying they will today if it reflects what Boris seems to be proposing.
Yep, but that is not a deal. It is a proposal that everyone knows the EU will not accept. It's about being able to blame them for No Deal.
I think we would all benefit from the following clarification of terms -
DEAL: The Future Relationship. To be negotiated over a period of several years which will likely span multiple general elections and potentially some big changes in political climate both here and in Brussels. Until these negotiations are concluded it is not possible to say whether we have ended up with a 'soft' or a 'hard' Brexit.
BREXIT: The event - which can be chaotic or orderly - that must occur in order to start the above negotiations.
This might sound semantic but I don't think it is. If one uses this terminology it puts a different - and IMO more accurate - slant on things.
For example, it becomes clear that a 'No Deal Brexit' is a meaningless tautology. ALL Brexits are No Deal Brexits since a Deal can only be done once Brexit has happened.
As long as there is Corbyn the Tories will win most seats and have a very decent chance to get a majority. The coud well do it with a vote share close to the 1997 one.
Yes, that's certainly possible. But the window is relatively narrow: to get a majority, Boris needs to either circumvent the Benn Act and engineer an election before the no-deal chaos hits home, or somehow evade the blame for not doing-or-dying whilst holding his current support for long enough to get to the election before too much political capital has drained away.
That Boris speech is one of the best I’ve ever heard.
It beats Churchill’s “we will fight them on the beaches”.
Just superb.
You're not normally one for sarcasm.
What do you mean?
If only Churchill had half the rhetorical skills and energy that Boris has we’d have been in Berlin in 1944, and ended the Cold War before it ever began.
That Boris speech is one of the best I’ve ever heard.
It beats Churchill’s “we will fight them on the beaches”.
Just superb.
You're not normally one for sarcasm.
What do you mean?
If only Churchill had half the rhetorical skills and energy that Boris has we’d have been in Berlin in 1944, and ended the Cold War before it ever began.
I think we would all benefit from the following clarification of terms -
DEAL: The Future Relationship. To be negotiated over a period of several years which will likely span multiple general elections and potentially some big changes in political climate both here and in Brussels. Until these negotiations are concluded it is not possible to say whether we have ended up with a 'soft' or a 'hard' Brexit.
BREXIT: The event - which can be chaotic or orderly - that must occur in order to start the above negotiations.
This might sound semantic but I don't think it is. If one uses this terminology it puts a different - and IMO more accurate - slant on things.
For example, it becomes clear that a 'No Deal Brexit' is a meaningless tautology. ALL Brexits are No Deal Brexits since a Deal can only be done once Brexit has happened.
So maybe "No Transition Period and No Starting Point for Talks on a Future Relationship" Brexit?
And given your thoughts on the time needed to negotiate a future relationship, do you see a standstill transition period being extended for the same period (which would be politically tricky for some when those multiple general elections come round!)
I think we would all benefit from the following clarification of terms -
DEAL: The Future Relationship. To be negotiated over a period of several years which will likely span multiple general elections and potentially some big changes in political climate both here and in Brussels. Until these negotiations are concluded it is not possible to say whether we have ended up with a 'soft' or a 'hard' Brexit.
BREXIT: The event - which can be chaotic or orderly - that must occur in order to start the above negotiations.
This might sound semantic but I don't think it is. If one uses this terminology it puts a different - and IMO more accurate - slant on things.
For example, it becomes clear that a 'No Deal Brexit' is a meaningless tautology. ALL Brexits are No Deal Brexits since a Deal can only be done once Brexit has happened.
No, a 'deal' in this context means a Withdrawal Agreement. It would be very confusing to switch terminology now.
I think we would all benefit from the following clarification of terms -
DEAL: The Future Relationship. To be negotiated over a period of several years which will likely span multiple general elections and potentially some big changes in political climate both here and in Brussels. Until these negotiations are concluded it is not possible to say whether we have ended up with a 'soft' or a 'hard' Brexit.
BREXIT: The event - which can be chaotic or orderly - that must occur in order to start the above negotiations.
This might sound semantic but I don't think it is. If one uses this terminology it puts a different - and IMO more accurate - slant on things.
For example, it becomes clear that a 'No Deal Brexit' is a meaningless tautology. ALL Brexits are No Deal Brexits since a Deal can only be done once Brexit has happened.
That's the way I always saw it. Even if nothing changes at first, we have the opportunity to elect governments that can change our relationship with the EU over time. I would have bitten your hand off to be in this position now if you had asked me in 2013
Elections are very unpredictable things as the 2017 election showed and you can easily imagine a Lib/Lab Government.Would such a Government abolish private schools? Who knows and why take the risk?
No, anyone who understands anything about politics, there's no risk
You have a crystal ball telling you what is in the coalition government manifesto do you? In any event you only need to raise the prospect on the doorstep and that will be enough.
It's unlikely that the LibDems would want another coalition for ovious reasons. Any C&S arrangement would mean Labour's more extreme policies being voted down.
One thing that all these shenanigans in Parliament with MPs defecting,cross party collusion,talk of GNUs etc has made clear is that you can rule absolutely nothing out any more.How strong the LDs bargaining position would be would depend on the Mp numbers and we have seen before over student fees that they are prepared to sell out their principles for government. In any event I am not sure which of Labour's policies they regard as extreme.
I still find the "Lib Dem sell-out" meme a bit unthinking (apparently unusually for someone not on their frontbench team ).
They held about one in seven of the seats in a coalition. Therefore they were going to get little more than one in seven of the sweeties - and be expected to unwrap the other six and pop them in Daddy Cameron's mouth.
I don't see Cameron being accused of "selling out Tory principles" by legalising gay marriage or holding a referendum on changing the FPTP voting system (though I concede he might if he lost that one too!)
Given what's gone since, I'd say there's prima facie evidence of the LibDems being quite a moderating influence on the 2010 Tory administration. And what's the point of even existing as a minor party if you don't want to hold power in some form.
So. I think their coolness on a coalition will ease somewhat at 10.05pm on election night if the exit poll says the right things. Mind you.. I still think there's an interesting space to be explored between "won't do a deal with Corbyn or Johnson" (which they've said) and "won't do a deal with Lab or Con" (which I don't think they have).
Trust in politics and politicians in this country is probably now at an all time low.People remember the Lib Dems and tuition fees as a totemic sell out (whatever the reasons for it ) so they are far from immune to this distrust. The electorate will assume their worst scenario will be likely to materialise now.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
Come again?
Free movement ending has already been accepted by the EU in May's deal, why would it continue under a Boris deal?
The transition is a total standstill. Free movement does not end under it. As for the future relationship, that depends on trade offs that have yet to be made. Johnson has now accepted the principle of a standstill transition, having previously described it as an unacceptable 'vassal state' status.
Will the UK have to enforce the financial transparency regulations during transition?
As long as there is Corbyn the Tories will win most seats and have a very decent chance to get a majority. The coud well do it with a vote share close to the 1997 one.
Yes, that's certainly possible. But the window is relatively narrow: to get a majority, Boris needs to either circumvent the Benn Act and engineer an election before the no-deal chaos hits home, or somehow evade the blame for not doing-or-dying whilst holding his current support for long enough to get to the election before too much political capital has drained away.
OK, say Mr Cummings has a cunning plan and the UK crashes out in just over 4 weeks time. The opposition parties would have no reason not to let him stay put until enough chickens return to roost for the Tories to sink in the polls. So GE not before next year?
By suggesting Brexit is a cancer on this country, I think you are confusing the cause with the symptom. It is the causes of Brexit that are the cancer. As yet there seem to very few suggestions for treating the causes.
The cause is our semi-detached relationship. The cure is to join the Euro.
I agree the semidetached relationship is a major (but by no means the only) cause. Fully in is far preferable to revoke to where we were.
Being half in gives you the same problems as being fully in. Better a clean withdrawal.
Half in and all in give different problems. We know half in is a fractious position, all in would, I believe, be better.
Our two best options are all in or all out. All options are in some way suboptimal.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
Come again?
Free movement ending has already been accepted by the EU in May's deal, why would it continue under a Boris deal?
The transition is a total standstill. Free movement does not end under it. As for the future relationship, that depends on trade offs that have yet to be made. Johnson has now accepted the principle of a standstill transition, having previously described it as an unacceptable 'vassal state' status.
Will the UK have to enforce the financial transparency regulations during transition?
I think we would all benefit from the following clarification of terms -
DEAL: The Future Relationship. To be negotiated over a period of several years which will likely span multiple general elections and potentially some big changes in political climate both here and in Brussels. Until these negotiations are concluded it is not possible to say whether we have ended up with a 'soft' or a 'hard' Brexit.
BREXIT: The event - which can be chaotic or orderly - that must occur in order to start the above negotiations.
This might sound semantic but I don't think it is. If one uses this terminology it puts a different - and IMO more accurate - slant on things.
For example, it becomes clear that a 'No Deal Brexit' is a meaningless tautology. ALL Brexits are No Deal Brexits since a Deal can only be done once Brexit has happened.
No, a 'deal' in this context means a Withdrawal Agreement. It would be very confusing to switch terminology now.
If we leave without a deal then what happens to the other parties positions. Rejoining the EU looks a natural change for the Lib Dems, but does Labour switch to a referendum on rejoining or just bury Brexit under a renewed domestic agenda.
It’s game over for the Brexit Party if a deal passes .
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
The symbolism of having left but still being constrained by EU rules can't be underestimated. The whole thing will have been for nothing, and it will do nothing to end the polarisation.
The symbolisation of having voted for something and it being done rather than ignored is what seems to be underestimated
You voted to end free movement. If there's a deal, free movement will continue. It will be a complete slap in the face for you.
Come again?
Free movement ending has already been accepted by the EU in May's deal, why would it continue under a Boris deal?
The transition is a total standstill. Free movement does not end under it. As for the future relationship, that depends on trade offs that have yet to be made. Johnson has now accepted the principle of a standstill transition, having previously described it as an unacceptable 'vassal state' status.
Will the UK have to enforce the financial transparency regulations during transition?
Comments
Guests at this year's Tory conference: disability assessors Atos, who've driven thousands into destitution; Raytheon, whose British-made bombs massacre in Yemen; and Deliveroo, whose entire business model is based on bogus self-employment. That's who this government represents.
The Cayman Islands tax avoidance stall more than any of the above says it all.
Boris has simply told delegates what they want to hear. He does it amusingly. But that's all.
Something to bear in mind when the odds on Hampstead & Kilburn become available.
https://twitter.com/neill_bob/status/1179373135705133058?s=21
next up - Daily Mail not impressed with Corbyn.
CNN not impressed with Trump.
Turkey's not impressed with impending Christmas.
Farage can scream betrayal but the symbolism of the UK leaving can’t be underestimated.
You wound me, sir.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/17939903.jo-swinson-tory-trends-libdem-leader-sees-brexit-backlash/
I paraphrase but that's what she was saying
Kinnock 1985 and Cameron 2005 were both in opposition and not long from major defeats, years before a new election was due, where the opposition needed a rebuilding process to get it ready for opposition let alone governance.
This isn't a start of a rebuild speech, this is a potential pre-General Election speech and needs to be viewed in that context. So for Kinnock the relevant comparison would be eg the Sheffield Rally and I think today was much smarter than that!
He's good at the wordsmithy, funny stuff and it was at least positive and optimistic. He can only really look a week ahead at a time given Brexit and the parliament mission to oust him, so it did an adequate holding job. It keeps the party happy and on side and offers some self-belief that a Brexit deal isn't surmountable.
Certainly A LOT more listenable than Theresa May's miserable, turgid efforts.
Really?
May's agreement with the EU didn't mean free movement continued
This is why charm, if combined with a lack of scruple, can be very dangerous.
Free movement ending has already been accepted by the EU in May's deal, why would it continue under a Boris deal?
Our two best options are all in or all out. All options are in some way suboptimal.
Flutter entertainment which owns bookmakers Paddy Power and Betfair has announced a merger with Canada's Star Group
I think rejoin would be a bad mistake as I don’t think the public including some Remainers like myself would be in the mood to have years more acrimony and division .
I’d vote for the party that promises the closest EU links but not that interested in voting to rejoin.
At some point in the future perhaps that will happen , much depends on how Brexit goes.
I know it must be close to 100% of journalists, but how much does this affect everyone else ?
Lie 1
Lie 2
Lie 3
Lie 4
Boris didn't call a transition vassal status AFAIK. The backstop with no exit was.
christ.
Swinson can veto Corbyn because he will be the first person put forward, she then kicks the ball over to him, and if he vetoes beckett\Clarke etc, both he and the LDs could be accused of no deal enabling.
Abbott later said: “Whether it’s women members in this house, women claiming benefits, women’s reproductive rights in Northern Ireland, and the failure to support women workers at Thomas Cook, isn’t this a government letting women down?”
Raab replied: “On this side of the house we’re proud to be on our second female prime minister.”
The party isn't hunting unicorns it is hunting voters. Get a real majority at an election and all your other concerns are dealt with.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/24/david-davis-rejects-vassal-state-claim-over-brexit-transition
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/1179361568536109056?s=20
Both are at odds with the Brexiteer religion which demands things are true and false at the same time.
I'm sure you'll find something worth reading.
Equally valid to anybody who retweets their opinions.
They held about one in seven of the seats in a coalition. Therefore they were going to get little more than one in seven of the sweeties - and be expected to unwrap the other six and pop them in Daddy Cameron's mouth.
I don't see Cameron being accused of "selling out Tory principles" by legalising gay marriage or holding a referendum on changing the FPTP voting system (though I concede he might if he lost that one too!)
Given what's gone since, I'd say there's prima facie evidence of the LibDems being quite a moderating influence on the 2010 Tory administration. And what's the point of even existing as a minor party if you don't want to hold power in some form.
So. I think their coolness on a coalition will ease somewhat at 10.05pm on election night if the exit poll says the right things. Mind you.. I still think there's an interesting space to be explored between "won't do a deal with Corbyn or Johnson" (which they've said) and "won't do a deal with Lab or Con" (which I don't think they have).
DEAL:
The Future Relationship. To be negotiated over a period of several years which will likely span multiple general elections and potentially some big changes in political climate both here and in Brussels. Until these negotiations are concluded it is not possible to say whether we have ended up with a 'soft' or a 'hard' Brexit.
BREXIT:
The event - which can be chaotic or orderly - that must occur in order to start the above negotiations.
This might sound semantic but I don't think it is. If one uses this terminology it puts a different - and IMO more accurate - slant on things.
For example, it becomes clear that a 'No Deal Brexit' is a meaningless tautology. ALL Brexits are No Deal Brexits since a Deal can only be done once Brexit has happened.
If only Churchill had half the rhetorical skills and energy that Boris has we’d have been in Berlin in 1944, and ended the Cold War before it ever began.
And given your thoughts on the time needed to negotiate a future relationship, do you see a standstill transition period being extended for the same period (which would be politically tricky for some when those multiple general elections come round!)
Twitter commentators don't like Boris!!!
And in other news the Pope remains Catholic!
So the Withdrawal Agreement is 'Orderly Brexit'. And exit without is 'Chaotic Brexit'.
And then the Deal - the FR - will tag that Brexit in due course as being Hard or Soft. Unless we never get that far in which case we have No Brexit.