So Labour will negotiate with all their little hearts for a deal and then campaign against it. And that, to you, is "not ludicrous". If they want to remain, which is what you say they do, then why not just say "we want to remain"?
The Deal is Norway plus! Me and you could get it done in a long weekend.
They WILL be saying they want to Remain. They ARE saying that. Just about every single leading figure bar Jez has said so.
Is that all you're getting at? That the Great Man himself has not committed?
You people calling Labour's Brexit policy ludicrous -
Would you find it less so if the policy were NOT to negotiate a "Labour Deal" but rather to just take the Boris or May one and put that out to Ref2 vs Remain?
IOW, is it this "negotiate a Deal and then campaign against it" that is especially bugging you?
Imo that is the problem. And solved easily by letting Labour leavers negotiate it independent of the shadow cabinet team who could in turn be more clearly pro remain.
I'd wondered how the "split" in the main parties over Brexit was going to come about.
Johnson must be pleased it's come by a few dozen left-leaning Tories like Hammond throwing in the towel, rather than Change UK or similar being a successful vehicle.
But he also needs to hope millions of voters who thought Hammond (or Clarke etc) was their cup of tea don't notice what's left is less to their taste..
Indeed! The dregs of what was once a great broad church party is not very appealing, particularly when the dregs of the dregs make up the front bench!
What I think could be very amusing will be if Bozo gets a majority of, say 5 or 10. There are a reasonable number of folk who could decide to be the new awkward squad. Cummings will order him to take away the whip and we will be back to square one!
So Labour will negotiate with all their little hearts for a deal and then campaign against it. And that, to you, is "not ludicrous". If they want to remain, which is what you say they do, then why not just say "we want to remain"?
The Deal is Norway plus! Me and you could get it done in a long weekend.
They WILL be saying they want to Remain. They ARE saying that. Just about every single leading figure bar Jez has said so.
Is that all you're getting at? That the Great Man himself has not committed?
And La Pidcock. Where does RLB stand on the matter?
But yes. Your leader. Note the term "leader". You told me yesterday that it was the job of political parties to lead. Your leader has manifestly failed to do that. On your own terms, that is a huge failing, no?
And La Pidcock. Where does RLB stand on the matter?
But yes. Your leader. Note the term "leader". You told me yesterday that it was the job of political parties to lead. Your leader has manifestly failed to do that. On your own terms, that is a huge failing, no?
So Labour will negotiate with all their little hearts for a deal and then campaign against it. And that, to you, is "not ludicrous". If they want to remain, which is what you say they do, then why not just say "we want to remain"?
The Deal is Norway plus! Me and you could get it done in a long weekend.
They WILL be saying they want to Remain. They ARE saying that. Just about every single leading figure bar Jez has said so.
Is that all you're getting at? That the Great Man himself has not committed?
And La Pidcock. Where does RLB stand on the matter?
But yes. Your leader. Note the term "leader". You told me yesterday that it was the job of political parties to lead. Your leader has manifestly failed to do that. On your own terms, that is a huge failing, no?
Children, stop squabbling. All the parties have ludicrous positions on Brexit, OK?
Indeed. The Tory policy of ruling out an extension to the transition period is utterly absurd and completely destructive. Either Johnson has to renege on the promise and start a Tory civil war or he has to take the UK off a cliff edge and inflict serious long term economic damage on the very constituencies that the Tories need to keep on winning to stay in power. What's more, the electoral benefit is probably neutral; as it will drive as many current LD voters to Labour as it will BXP voters to the Tories.
Children, stop squabbling. All the parties have ludicrous positions on Brexit, OK?
Indeed. The Tory policy of ruling out an extension to the transition period is utterly absurd and completely destructive. Either Johnson has to renege on the promise and start a Tory civil war or he has to take the UK off a cliff edge and inflict serious long term economic damage on the very constituencies that the Tories need to keep on winning to stay in power. What's more, the electoral benefit is probably neutral; as it will drive as many current LD voters to Labour as it will BXP voters to the Tories.
So far talking the talk of No Deal while capitulating to the EU has worked for Johnson. Setting himself another deadline will enable him to do the same thing again.
I'd wondered how the "split" in the main parties over Brexit was going to come about.
Johnson must be pleased it's come by a few dozen left-leaning Tories like Hammond throwing in the towel, rather than Change UK or similar being a successful vehicle.
But he also needs to hope millions of voters who thought Hammond (or Clarke etc) was their cup of tea don't notice what's left is less to their taste..
The idea that Hammond is a left-leaning Tory is for the fairies. He is far more fiscally conservative than the current Chancellor.
Children, stop squabbling. All the parties have ludicrous positions on Brexit, OK?
Indeed. The Tory policy of ruling out an extension to the transition period is utterly absurd and completely destructive. Either Johnson has to renege on the promise and start a Tory civil war or he has to take the UK off a cliff edge and inflict serious long term economic damage on the very constituencies that the Tories need to keep on winning to stay in power. What's more, the electoral benefit is probably neutral; as it will drive as many current LD voters to Labour as it will BXP voters to the Tories.
So far talking the talk of No Deal while capitulating to the EU has worked for Johnson. Setting himself another deadline will enable him to do the same thing again.
There will come a point when Johnson cannot get away with lying. My guess is that it will happen over the transition.
Children, stop squabbling. All the parties have ludicrous positions on Brexit, OK?
What would be a sensible position on Brexit? I'm sure we'd all like to know.
Theresa May's was by far the most sensible we've seen: respect the spirit and letter of the referendum, informed by what the Leave campaigns actually campaigned on, by negotiating an orderly withdrawal agreement with time to ratify it, and with a view to a final position that left us out of the EU whilst minimising the economic damage, avoiding a border down the Irish Sea, and leaving us with a highly advantageous fallback position to avoid a cliff-edge at the end of the transition period.
Children, stop squabbling. All the parties have ludicrous positions on Brexit, OK?
I'd say all the parties have an obvious Brexit position that the voter understands except Labour. They will get hammered for it on the campaign trail.
Do you think voters understand the implicaitons of ruling out an extension of the transition period?
He's very early into the term at that point, perhaps with a majority.
In order to secure the mega huge Bozza brexit bonananza deal we'll need to err.. just for a little bit.. extend. It's a touch of the melton mowbrays to keep Brexit nutjobs onboard for the election. In reality he has 5 years if he gets a majority to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. The self imposed pressure means we might get to one sooner than if a 5 year deadline was given too.
You’re betting on: the date when the resignation of the leader is announced
Given Corbyn is likely to announce he's resigning if the Tories get a Maj (Around Evens) I think this year is OK at 5-2.
Note it's the opposite on Betfair who definitely don't settle till the day of replacement as per May.
Corbyn will not resign. He is sticking around until he has a credible far-left successor - and as Pidcock and Long Bailey have shown, he does not have one yet.
Children, stop squabbling. All the parties have ludicrous positions on Brexit, OK?
I'd say all the parties have an obvious Brexit position that the voter understands except Labour. They will get hammered for it on the campaign trail.
Do you think voters understand the implicaitons of ruling out an extension of the transition period?
He's very early into the term at that point, perhaps with a majority.
In order to secure the mega huge Bozza brexit bonananza deal we'll need to err.. just for a little bit.. extend. It's a touch of the melton mowbrays to keep Brexit nutjobs onboard for the election. In reality he has 5 years if he gets a majority to negotiate a trade deal with the EU. The self imposed pressure means we might get to one sooner than if a 5 year deadline was given too.
tldr; He'll extend.
I am not sure he will. It will be carnage inside the new look English Nationalist Party if he does.
Children, stop squabbling. All the parties have ludicrous positions on Brexit, OK?
I'd say all the parties have an obvious Brexit position that the voter understands except Labour. They will get hammered for it on the campaign trail.
Do you think voters understand the implicaitons of ruling out an extension of the transition period?
Some do and some do not but that goes with numerous policies across the board.Ruling out an extension on the transition period is something that can be implemented whether you like it or not.
What we do know is there is clear water between the Brexit policies of all the main parties but Labour are the only party with a completely fanciful policy that is impractical, unattainable and unpopular.
The plan is to negotiate a deal, but then campaign against that deal. I think any normal person would find that ludicrous.
The plan is to negotiate the least economically damaging Brexit possible and allow the public to choose between that and Remain. This is not "ludicrous" in any regular sense of the word. The resulting Referendum, however, in having no option that could enthuse the Leave community would be a bit ludicrous. So I'll give you that.
The ludicrous bit is them campaigning against the deal they negotiated.
That's exactly what a bunch of cabinet ministers did in 2016.
Campaigning against a deal you had no part in negotiating is not the same as campaigning against the deal you yourself negotiated.
Children, stop squabbling. All the parties have ludicrous positions on Brexit, OK?
I'd say all the parties have an obvious Brexit position that the voter understands except Labour. They will get hammered for it on the campaign trail.
Do you think voters understand the implicaitons of ruling out an extension of the transition period?
Some do and some do not but that goes with numerous policies across the board.Ruling out an extension on the transition period is something that can be implemented whether you like it or not.
What we do know is there is clear water between the Brexit policies of all the main parties but Labour are the only party with a completely fanciful policy that is impractical, unattainable and unpopular.
I agree about the Labour policy. As Richard N points out, the same applies tot he LibDem and Tory ones, too.
Children, stop squabbling. All the parties have ludicrous positions on Brexit, OK?
Indeed. The Tory policy of ruling out an extension to the transition period is utterly absurd and completely destructive. Either Johnson has to renege on the promise and start a Tory civil war or he has to take the UK off a cliff edge and inflict serious long term economic damage on the very constituencies that the Tories need to keep on winning to stay in power. What's more, the electoral benefit is probably neutral; as it will drive as many current LD voters to Labour as it will BXP voters to the Tories.
Now, on more important matters: what the hell do we make of Ashfield???
Ind gain
I know they did very well in the council elections, but Indies don't tend to do well in GEs - and won't the potential Zadrozny Leaver-friendly vote be split Con/BXP?
A Chancellor who thinks it is a good idea to spend billions on Trident to mitigate against the risk of nuclear war but thinks it is a good idea to block spending on preparations for a no deal Brexit when it is not just a clear and present risk that it could occur but is in fact government policy that it could occur is utterly out of his depth and should never be trusted near power ever again.
Great news for the Lib Dems . Any split in the Tory vote there looks likely to give them the seat .
Would the people who will vote for Anne Milton have been more likely to vote Tory or LD? I could be wrong but would have thought those independently enough minded to vote for her as an independent might be close to 50/50 between Tory/LD if she was not standing?
A Chancellor who thinks it is a good idea to spend billions on Trident to mitigate against the risk of nuclear war but thinks it is a good idea to block spending on preparations for a no deal Brexit when it is not just a clear and present risk that it could occur but is in fact government policy that it could occur is utterly out of his depth and should never be trusted near power ever again.
What an absolutely stupid post. Really, you sound completely deranged.
Quite apart from the absurdity of your comparison, we were assured by Boris and his team just days after Hammond resigned that No Deal was going to be fine on October 31st. So how in the name of heaven can it possibly be that Hammond blocked spending on preparations? If he had, Boris would have have to extend as we wouldn't have been ready, wouldn't he?
Great news for the Lib Dems . Any split in the Tory vote there looks likely to give them the seat .
Would the people who will vote for Anne Milton have been more likely to vote Tory or LD? I could be wrong but would have thought those independently enough minded to vote for her as an independent might be close to 50/50 between Tory/LD if she was not standing?
I considered this myself earlier, I will bow to any local knowledge as I only visit Guildford once a year. Looking at the numbers the Lib Dems probably need to squeeze Labour under 5,000 votes in order to win.
Now, on more important matters: what the hell do we make of Ashfield???
Ind gain
I know they did very well in the council elections, but Indies don't tend to do well in GEs - and won't the potential Zadrozny Leaver-friendly vote be split Con/BXP?
One of the things to note for Ashfield (and East Devon) is that it appears that the Lib Dems have lots of money, and appear to be throwing large amounts into the air war / are generically carpet bombing the country with leaflets relatively indiscriminately. Like the 2010 'Cleggasm' I expect this to boost Lib Dem votes even in places where it is of no help - and I don't see that being to the advantage of local indie type candidates.
Mr. P, and Mr. Tweed, there's a choice, though. It's not a poll on whether you like the Conservative Party (or the Labour Party, for that matter). It's comparing them to see what you like the most/dislike the least [well, really it's voting for individuals, but many people are motivated on a party basis].
A Chancellor who thinks it is a good idea to spend billions on Trident to mitigate against the risk of nuclear war but thinks it is a good idea to block spending on preparations for a no deal Brexit when it is not just a clear and present risk that it could occur but is in fact government policy that it could occur is utterly out of his depth and should never be trusted near power ever again.
What an absolutely stupid post. Really, you sound completely deranged.
Quite apart from the absurdity of your comparison, we were assured by Boris and his team just days after Hammond resigned that No Deal was going to be fine on October 31st. So how in the name of heaven can it possibly be that Hammond blocked spending on preparations? If he had, Boris would have have to extend as we wouldn't have been ready, wouldn't he?
Its an entirely reasonable comparison. The point is that the government doesn't just spend money it wants to occur, but to prepare for unwanted contingencies. Even if a government wants a deal, it is entirely logical and reasonable to prepare for No Deal. If we only prepared for events we wanted to occur we could abolish not just Trident but the entire Ministry of Defence.
As for Boris, Brexit was only going to be fine because Boris and his team massively ramped up no deal Brexit preparations which Hammond had neglected.
Comments
They WILL be saying they want to Remain. They ARE saying that. Just about every single leading figure bar Jez has said so.
Is that all you're getting at? That the Great Man himself has not committed?
What I think could be very amusing will be if Bozo gets a majority of, say 5 or 10. There are a reasonable number of folk who could decide to be the new awkward squad. Cummings will order him to take away the whip and we will be back to square one!
But yes. Your leader. Note the term "leader". You told me yesterday that it was the job of political parties to lead. Your leader has manifestly failed to do that. On your own terms, that is a huge failing, no?
Leader Quit Dates
You’re betting on: the date when the resignation of the leader is announced
Given Corbyn is likely to announce he's resigning if the Tories get a Maj (Around Evens) I think this year is OK at 5-2.
Note it's the opposite on Betfair who definitely don't settle till the day of replacement as per May.
In order to secure the mega huge Bozza brexit bonananza deal we'll need to err.. just for a little bit.. extend. It's a touch of the melton mowbrays to keep Brexit nutjobs onboard for the election. In reality he has 5 years if he gets a majority to negotiate a trade deal with the EU.
The self imposed pressure means we might get to one sooner than if a 5 year deadline was given too.
tldr; He'll extend.
What we do know is there is clear water between the Brexit policies of all the main parties but Labour are the only party with a completely fanciful policy that is impractical, unattainable and unpopular.
Edit: That said I generally bet against independents. But he's a bit different to say Dominic Grieve and Rory Stewart.
A Chancellor who thinks it is a good idea to spend billions on Trident to mitigate against the risk of nuclear war but thinks it is a good idea to block spending on preparations for a no deal Brexit when it is not just a clear and present risk that it could occur but is in fact government policy that it could occur is utterly out of his depth and should never be trusted near power ever again.
Quite apart from the absurdity of your comparison, we were assured by Boris and his team just days after Hammond resigned that No Deal was going to be fine on October 31st. So how in the name of heaven can it possibly be that Hammond blocked spending on preparations? If he had, Boris would have have to extend as we wouldn't have been ready, wouldn't he?
NEW THREAD
As for Boris, Brexit was only going to be fine because Boris and his team massively ramped up no deal Brexit preparations which Hammond had neglected.
Will happily do a charity bet that he'll be gone by June 2020 if he loses the election.
Which means it will probably happen