The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
Do people not go out in the dark, any fearties can apply for postal vote.
The idea that we will threaten to leave the transition period is for the birds. At least for 4-5 years. The difference now is that the government has got that time to replicate and extend non-EU trade agreements so that we're ready to do a minimal deal with the EU should they have unreasonable demands for a wider ranging one.
The transition period ends in December 2020. We are not going to extend it. Johnson has promised. We will have 11 months to put everything in place.
The problem for the Lib Dems is that Labour voters may be unwilling to back them in any circumstance because of their alliance with the Tories in the Coalition government. I am hearing this on the doorstep and a shiny new leader does not change this fact. Furthermore the revoke policy is seen as undemocratic by some voters. Tactical voting may not be a factor in this election after all.
I am sure that is true in some seats, but not in many in the south where the reality that Labour has no chance in those seats is well understood.
You have a bit of a blind spot as in amongst Tory triumphalists multiple people immediately thought the plan bodes very Ill for the tories .
I must admit on reflection a lot will depend on where you think the BXP get its votes. If they are ex-Conservatives it's fair to say the Conservatives would benefit if they returned to the fold. If, however, the BXP is mainly ex-Labour votes, what would be the impact? Would such voters vote Conservative? In some cases, yes, in others they might choose to stay at home.
It will be fascinating to see if it makes the difference between a small Conservative majority and a large one.
The idea that we will threaten to leave the transition period is for the birds. At least for 4-5 years. The difference now is that the government has got that time to replicate and extend non-EU trade agreements so that we're ready to do a minimal deal with the EU should they have unreasonable demands for a wider ranging one.
The transition period ends in December 2020. We are not going to extend it. Johnson has promised. We will have 11 months to put everything in place.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
They’ve got the money they wanted from us. It’s in the Withdrawal Agreement. If we want an extension we’ll have to pay more. That’s not leverage, it’s a fact of life. If we don’t want to pay more, we’ll not extend and we’ll have a bare bones WTO agreement that, now the Irish have what they want on Northern Ireland, will hurt us a whole lot more than every EU member state.
But we will extend.
So Johnson is lying. Cue another Tory civil war. Obviously, it’s ridiculous not to, but Brexit is nothing if it is not ridiculous.
I have not seen this on here, but I know @Cyclefree was talking about it.
"Boris Johnson's Conservative party has received donations from nine Russian donors, with suspected links to the Kremlin, according to an official report which has been suppressed by the prime minister. Johnson chose to block publication of the report amid reported fears it could cost him the upcoming general election. Leaked details from the report tie Johnson's party to London-based Russian oligarchs, some of whom have known ties to the Russian security services. There has been a surge in donations from prominent Russians to the Conservative party over the past year."
See Lib Dems have started their legal action against ITV. Should be good fun. By not including Swinson on the grounds she cannot be PM they have given her extra publicity in Court which could end up in her being classed as such a candidate. From ITVs point of view would be a pretty pointless e xercise.Re. Balance of Probabilities, would not like to say who is goinbg to win. Will it be allowed to go to a full hearing., If so that really will be fun. Lib Dems asking for more money this week from members, to cover legal cvosts?
Dangerous case for the Lib Dems. If ITV win the case then that's it expect them to be excluded from now on quite consistently until polls or results give a reason for the media to start including them again.
Also, if ITV win it is effectively the courts saying "Jo Swinson? Our PM? Yer 'avin' a giraffe...."
It is pretty amusing. We've got people happy with a pact upset at a sort of opposing pact, and people furious at an opposing pact happy with their own. If only there was a word for it..
That is just average for your Scottish unionist supporter, especially Tories. Lying cheating toerags and thick as mince. That is the type of moron that is in elected office, has not read the latest London memo.
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
It's going to be very hard to get a deal IMO. The sticking point is not going to be money, it will be regulatory divergence. Many people say that it should be easy because we start from a position of regulatory alignment, but that misses the point: the questions are going to be: what happens as the EU changes its regulations, or we want to change ours, and who is going to adjudicate on any discrepancy [spoiler: it will be the ECJ]? Pinning down all that stuff in legal terms is not going to be easy, unless we simply sign up to following all EU regulations as they change; anything less, and the EU states will be extremely suspicious that we're trying to undermine them with lowered standards.
It's largely tosh anyway, of course: the EU is a regulatory superpower (even if it's not any other kind of superpower), and in practice we'll follow it anyway. But it is going to cause a massive row in the Conservative Party when Boris has to sign up to dynamic regulatory alignment, and a separate row when he has to admit that it can't all be tied up next year.
Sporting Index appear to be in a constant dither and have yet again suspended their GE seats market, meanwhile Spreadex remain open for trading with a record mid-spread high of 347 for the Tories, 200 for Labour and 35.5 for the LibDems, having peaked at 49 just a few short weeks ago.
I just had a nice email from Sporting Index 'congratulations you have won a £50 free bet!' Made £45.00 from it!
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
Street lights?
Remind me.... What is a street?
I live somewhere "where the streets have no name".
Quite literally. Rather amused me when we moved in.
The idea that we will threaten to leave the transition period is for the birds. At least for 4-5 years. The difference now is that the government has got that time to replicate and extend non-EU trade agreements so that we're ready to do a minimal deal with the EU should they have unreasonable demands for a wider ranging one.
The transition period ends in December 2020. We are not going to extend it. Johnson has promised. We will have 11 months to put everything in place.
True he is noted for honesty , integrity and keeping his promises.
The idea that we will threaten to leave the transition period is for the birds. At least for 4-5 years. The difference now is that the government has got that time to replicate and extend non-EU trade agreements so that we're ready to do a minimal deal with the EU should they have unreasonable demands for a wider ranging one.
The transition period ends in December 2020. We are not going to extend it. Johnson has promised. We will have 11 months to put everything in place.
Lol, Bozza also promised no deal on the 31st. He is at least consistent in his lies.
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
You seem to view leaving without a deal as far less disastrous than most other people.
Personally I expect Boris will pay whatever the EU demands with a few token changes...
I have consistently viewed it as both less disastrous and less likely than most other people.
Johnson got the changes he wanted to both the PD and WA despite the fact we had been assured it was impossible, despite the Benn Act and despite being hamstrung by a Remainer Parliament.
If we get a healthy majority I expect a sensible mutually respectful deal to be rapidly agreed because it is in the interest of all parties to agree it.
We are essentially getting back to where we should have been before the Tories made the atrocious mistake of making May our PM and then her throwing away the majority.
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
It will be a quick deal that keeps the Tories together or a longer one that does the least harm to the country. That is Johnson’s choice. I suspect he’ll go for the former.
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
It's going to be very hard to get a deal IMO. The sticking point is not going to be money, it will be regulatory divergence. Many people say that it should be easy because we start from a position of regulatory alignment, but that misses the point: the questions are going to be: what happens as the EU changes its regulations, or we want to change ours, and who is going to adjudicate on any discrepancy [spoiler: it will be the ECJ]? Pinning down all that stuff in legal terms is not going to be easy, unless we simply sign up to following all EU regulations as they change; anything less, and the EU states will be extremely suspicious that we're trying to undermine them with lowered standards.
It's largely tosh anyway, of course: the EU is a regulatory superpower (even if it's not any other kind of superpower), and in practice we'll follow it anyway. But it is going to cause a massive row in the Conservative Party when Boris has to sign up to dynamic regulatory alignment, and a separate row when he has to admit that it can't all be tied up next year.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
See Lib Dems have started their legal action against ITV. Should be good fun. By not including Swinson on the grounds she cannot be PM they have given her extra publicity in Court which could end up in her being classed as such a candidate. From ITVs point of view would be a pretty pointless e xercise.Re. Balance of Probabilities, would not like to say who is goinbg to win. Will it be allowed to go to a full hearing., If so that really will be fun. Lib Dems asking for more money this week from members, to cover legal cvosts?
Dangerous case for the Lib Dems. If ITV win the case then that's it expect them to be excluded from now on quite consistently until polls or results give a reason for the media to start including them again.
Also, if ITV win it is effectively the courts saying "Jo Swinson? Our PM? Yer 'avin' a giraffe...."
On that "'avin' a giraffe" basis, why is Corbyn included in the debates?
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
Street lights?
Remind me.... What is a street?
A thoroughfare for persons or vehicles, or both, which can be illuminated through the use of electrically powered lights.
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
Street lights?
Remind me.... What is a street?
I live somewhere "where the streets have no name".
Quite literally. Rather amused me when we moved in.
Kinabalu I enjoy your analysis and I think here you are dead right.
People assume Boris is a Brexit Ultra. He is not. He is simply in hock to them.
380 Seats gives him wriggle room to do as you predict.
Unlike you, I am not as bullish (as a bettor, i appreciate, not as a fair minded citizen) on the Tories.
You are a most kind construct.
No, funnily enough, I do not really fear that Boris will govern as a ghastly right-wing nationalist and reactionary. My problem with him is that he has no principles, no integrity, no sense of service to anything bar himself. I do not like to see the sort of low-rent behaviour he has indulged in being rewarded with our highest elected office. I hate that we have such a person as our PM and are likely to give him a big election win.
So, betting aside, I hope your call on the GE is better than mine.
What is surprising to me is the low LD vote in University towns.
I think it would be necessary to see the breakdown of the sample to make a judgement. Of the university towns listed only Cambridge has any real LD strength and some like Huddersfield, Lancaster and Preston are positive LD wastelands. I suspect there is a myth about LDs and university towns based on Cambridge and very few other cases.
Most of the smaller unis have, what, 10-20k students? Although they may have a higher than average propensity to vote LD, the same is - possibly more - true for Lab, and a not insignificant number will be Tory. And I suspect likelihood to vote is smaller than average.. especially in the week they break up for Christmas.
I don't claim any special knowledge or understanding of the student vote, other than to observe that (a) fads and fashions come and go more quickly than in the general population and (b) students who voted in 2017 are almost entirely different individuals from those who might vote next month. Even first-years from 2017 will by now have entered the world of work. My guess is that the current crop will break much more strongly for the Green Party and this will allow comfortable Tory wins in seats like Canterbury and Warwick & Leamington.
As I have said many times on other threads - it depends on the seat. Students are quite savvy and are unlikely to break for the Greens where there is a real Labour or LD challenge to a Conservative seat (Southampton Itchen or Guildford?). Elsewhere maybe they will.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and partially wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
Only because Johnson gave up on alternative arrangements and accepted the principle of an Irish Sea customs border.
The idea that we will threaten to leave the transition period is for the birds. At least for 4-5 years. The difference now is that the government has got that time to replicate and extend non-EU trade agreements so that we're ready to do a minimal deal with the EU should they have unreasonable demands for a wider ranging one.
The transition period ends in December 2020. We are not going to extend it. Johnson has promised. We will have 11 months to put everything in place.
Remind me what else Johnson promised.
At some point Johnson will no longer be able to lie. That’s why I think 31st January 2020 will be as good as it gets for him - and the Tories.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
It'll be interesting to see how the pollsters take account of the fact that the Brexit Party are only going to be contesting half the seats. It might be a bit more complicated that just halving their share.
Kinabalu I enjoy your analysis and I think here you are dead right.
People assume Boris is a Brexit Ultra. He is not. He is simply in hock to them.
380 Seats gives him wriggle room to do as you predict.
Unlike you, I am not as bullish (as a bettor, i appreciate, not as a fair minded citizen) on the Tories.
You are a most kind construct.
No, funnily enough, I do not really fear that Boris will govern as a ghastly right-wing nationalist and reactionary. My problem with him is that he has no principles, no integrity, no sense of service to anything bar himself. I do not like to see the sort of low-rent behaviour he has indulged in being rewarded with our highest elected office. I hate that we have such a person as our PM and are likely to give him a big election win.
So, betting aside, I hope your call on the GE is better than mine.
For all of his faults, Boris is a million times better than the alternative. That will be good enough for plenty of people at the upcoming election.
PaulM said: "Are Brexit Party standing against Caroline Flint ?"
That`s a good point - I think that they are.
UKIP got 23.5% of the vote in 2015 in Don Valley.
I think Flint is likely to hold on.
I will laugh if she loses as she went against her principles in voting for the BJ deal because she was worried about TBP or the Tories defeating her! You either think Brexit is a good thing for the country or a bad thing...
Ronnie Campbell may pay for his support by losing Blyth Valley too
That'd be tricky as he's not standing there again. Campbell was hardly "voting against his principles" by voting for Brexit though. He's as anti-europe as Cash or Redwood.
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
It's going to be very hard to get a deal IMO. The sticking point is not going to be money, it will be regulatory divergence. Many people say that it should be easy because we start from a position of regulatory alignment, but that misses the point: the questions are going to be: what happens as the EU changes its regulations, or we want to change ours, and who is going to adjudicate on any discrepancy [spoiler: it will be the ECJ]? Pinning down all that stuff in legal terms is not going to be easy, unless we simply sign up to following all EU regulations as they change; anything less, and the EU states will be extremely suspicious that we're trying to undermine them with lowered standards.
It's largely tosh anyway, of course: the EU is a regulatory superpower (even if it's not any other kind of superpower), and in practice we'll follow it anyway. But it is going to cause a massive row in the Conservative Party when Boris has to sign up to dynamic regulatory alignment, and a separate row when he has to admit that it can't all be tied up next year.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Richard’s mistake was to believe Johnson was telling the truth to the DUP and wasn’t going to give the Irish all they wanted.
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
It's going to be very hard to get a deal IMO. The sticking point is not going to be money, it will be regulatory divergence. Many people say that it should be easy because we start from a position of regulatory alignment, but that misses the point: the questions are going to be: what happens as the EU changes its regulations, or we want to change ours, and who is going to adjudicate on any discrepancy [spoiler: it will be the ECJ]? Pinning down all that stuff in legal terms is not going to be easy, unless we simply sign up to following all EU regulations as they change; anything less, and the EU states will be extremely suspicious that we're trying to undermine them with lowered standards.
It's largely tosh anyway, of course: the EU is a regulatory superpower (even if it's not any other kind of superpower), and in practice we'll follow it anyway. But it is going to cause a massive row in the Conservative Party when Boris has to sign up to dynamic regulatory alignment, and a separate row when he has to admit that it can't all be tied up next year.
I'm not sure that anyone cares about divergence on goods, ultimately exports to the EU will have to meet them anyway, even if the government chooses to diverge any company looking to export will need to ensure they meey EU importation criteria.
Services regulation is definitely somewhere divergence could be worth a lot. Not being shackled to the slowest moving member has a lot of advantages and European companies wanting to purchase those services can do so via a branch office based in the UK.
See Lib Dems have started their legal action against ITV. Should be good fun. By not including Swinson on the grounds she cannot be PM they have given her extra publicity in Court which could end up in her being classed as such a candidate. From ITVs point of view would be a pretty pointless e xercise.Re. Balance of Probabilities, would not like to say who is goinbg to win. Will it be allowed to go to a full hearing., If so that really will be fun. Lib Dems asking for more money this week from members, to cover legal cvosts?
Dangerous case for the Lib Dems. If ITV win the case then that's it expect them to be excluded from now on quite consistently until polls or results give a reason for the media to start including them again.
Also, if ITV win it is effectively the courts saying "Jo Swinson? Our PM? Yer 'avin' a giraffe...."
On that "'avin' a giraffe" basis, why is Corbyn included in the debates?
Well quite, you beat me to it. On current polling, you might as well have Bunter debate a cupcake.
See Lib Dems have started their legal action against ITV. Should be good fun. By not including Swinson on the grounds she cannot be PM they have given her extra publicity in Court which could end up in her being classed as such a candidate. From ITVs point of view would be a pretty pointless e xercise.Re. Balance of Probabilities, would not like to say who is goinbg to win. Will it be allowed to go to a full hearing., If so that really will be fun. Lib Dems asking for more money this week from members, to cover legal cvosts?
Dangerous case for the Lib Dems. If ITV win the case then that's it expect them to be excluded from now on quite consistently until polls or results give a reason for the media to start including them again.
Also, if ITV win it is effectively the courts saying "Jo Swinson? Our PM? Yer 'avin' a giraffe...."
On that "'avin' a giraffe" basis, why is Corbyn included in the debates?
Well quite, you beat me to it. On current polling, you might as well have Bunter debate a cupcake.
The idea that we will threaten to leave the transition period is for the birds. At least for 4-5 years. The difference now is that the government has got that time to replicate and extend non-EU trade agreements so that we're ready to do a minimal deal with the EU should they have unreasonable demands for a wider ranging one.
The transition period ends in December 2020. We are not going to extend it. Johnson has promised. We will have 11 months to put everything in place.
Remind me what else Johnson promised.
Deliver Brexit (still pending) Unite the country (still pending) Defeat Jeremy Corbyn (looks imminent) Energise the country (measurement issues)
I was just going to say that we need an @AndyJS to crunch the constituencies.
The above supports my view but has evidently been arrived at with more than (my) gut feel.
Yes there are a lot of assumptions. I start from the premise that as 12th Dec gets nearer then party loyalties will be the strongest factor.
So in my mind a Labour Leaver will nevertheless still have leftish sympathies such as to make voting BXP, by any estimation a party of the right, problematic.
I'm never quite sure. Here in Scouseland, I once asked a staunch Evertonian.
Forced choice - Weekend - Liverpool and Everton both LOSE, or Liverpool and Everton both WIN. Without a seconds hesitation, he'd rather they both lost, his hatred of Liverpool all consuming.
Some Labour voters are very tribal, such that they hate the Tories so much they lose sight of what parties are on the left-right scale. Certainly, my brother, staunch 'Labour' supporter is going to vote for 'Nigel!'. He'll never vote Tory. They eat babies. But he'll vote Brexit Party, because they'll get Brexit 'sorted'.
The fact the Brexit Party is led by an ex-Conservative, and has no policies except Brexit completely passes him by. He hates the Tories more than anything, and can't vote for them... but Nigel is okay.
So, in summary. You could well be right. But there are some tribal Labour voters who lose sight of why they vote Labour and instead just become the 'anti-Tory' voters.
As an evertonian I agree with him. However the fact is for many working class Labour voters the fact that they feel Labour has deserted them has no relevance to their hatred of the tories. They would vote for whoever would beat them. If they support Brexit this would mean they would prefer BXP if there was a perception they could win. Remainers would go LibDem if the perception is they could win. The fact Labour would be the major opposition in many places would mean they will vote Labour in those places. Labour and Conservative traditional voting blocs are less certain than before but they are still the most likely to beat “the other lot” so they will still garner the overwhelming majority of seats. At least in England. The other nations obviously have very different mathematics.
The truly interesting thing about today’s news is if the tories do take over BXP it leaves an electoral space for a leftist anti-EU party.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
Do people not go out in the dark, any fearties can apply for postal vote.
"Periodically, the Morlocks capture individual Eloi for food; and because this typically happens on moonless nights, the Eloi are terrified of darkness." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eloi)
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
It's going to be very hard to get a deal IMO. The sticking point is not going to be money, it will be regulatory divergence. Many people say that it should be easy because we start from a position of regulatory alignment, but that misses the point: the questions are going to be: what happens as the EU changes its regulations, or we want to change ours, and who is going to adjudicate on any discrepancy [spoiler: it will be the ECJ]? Pinning down all that stuff in legal terms is not going to be easy, unless we simply sign up to following all EU regulations as they change; anything less, and the EU states will be extremely suspicious that we're trying to undermine them with lowered standards.
It's largely tosh anyway, of course: the EU is a regulatory superpower (even if it's not any other kind of superpower), and in practice we'll follow it anyway. But it is going to cause a massive row in the Conservative Party when Boris has to sign up to dynamic regulatory alignment, and a separate row when he has to admit that it can't all be tied up next year.
I'm not sure that anyone cares about divergence on goods, ultimately exports to the EU will have to meet them anyway, even if the government chooses to diverge any company looking to export will need to ensure they meey EU importation criteria.
Services regulation is definitely somewhere divergence could be worth a lot. Not being shackled to the slowest moving member has a lot of advantages and European companies wanting to purchase those services can do so via a branch office based in the UK.
Regulatory alignment on goods buggers a trade deal with the US.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and partially wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Excellent - a debate between Philip Thompson and Richard Nabavi. I wonder who will get the intellectual upper hand? 😂 😂 😂
I'm not sure that anyone cares about divergence on goods, ultimately exports to the EU will have to meet them anyway, even if the government chooses to diverge any company looking to export will need to ensure they meey EU importation criteria.
Services regulation is definitely somewhere divergence could be worth a lot. Not being shackled to the slowest moving member has a lot of advantages and European companies wanting to purchase those services can do so via a branch office based in the UK.
Of course no-one should care about divergence on goods (although foodstuffs are a bit more tricky). That doesn't mean it won't be a big political issue, though. To take one completely obvious problem: are we going to sign up to recognition of EU protected denominations of origin, including all future ones? [Spoiler: Yes, of course, if there's going to be any deal at all]. That will send some of the nuttier Europhobes ballistic, and will also be a problem for any deal with the US, because they want the right to sell us fraudulent products under prestigious European names.
On services I agree it's more nuanced. I expect will end up with the highest common denominator of EU and US regulations on financial services.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Philip believes everything that Bozo and Cummings tells him, so yes he does think that, but of course he is wrong.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
In the PD Boris has accepted that their will be friction, primarily because of customs.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
I think Richard could very reasonably argue that it was indeed very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed which is why Boris had to compromise so much. He certainly didn't say it would be impossible. And no one would claim Boris didn't have to make big compromises to get what he wanted.
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
It's going to be very hard to get a deal IMO. The sticking point is not going to be money, it will be regulatory divergence. Many people say that it should be easy because we start from a position of regulatory alignment, but that misses the point: the questions are going to be: what happens as the EU changes its regulations, or we want to change ours, and who is going to adjudicate on any discrepancy [spoiler: it will be the ECJ]? Pinning down all that stuff in legal terms is not going to be easy, unless we simply sign up to following all EU regulations as they change; anything less, and the EU states will be extremely suspicious that we're trying to undermine them with lowered standards.
It's largely tosh anyway, of course: the EU is a regulatory superpower (even if it's not any other kind of superpower), and in practice we'll follow it anyway. But it is going to cause a massive row in the Conservative Party when Boris has to sign up to dynamic regulatory alignment, and a separate row when he has to admit that it can't all be tied up next year.
I think that Johnson knows that he has done a deal with the ERG and so if they are against dynamic regulatory alignment and an extension he has to be too.
I don't know what the best deal is that he can get from the EU with that limitation. If it's more than nothing we can be sure that he will tell us it's the best trade deal in history.
At some point Johnson will no longer be able to lie. That’s why I think 31st January 2020 will be as good as it gets for him - and the Tories.
Yes, it's going to be a long hard early 2020s for the Conservatives as their promises unravel and their commitments go undelivered.
The problem is the credible alternative needs to be there for 2024 and ideally well before that.
Hopefully a Labour leader that is able to persuade the electorate to back a return to the EU with full fat integration and monetary union. Not because I like the idea of the latter two, but because it would serve the gammons right, and it would be amusing to see their apoplexy.
Could one of the cognoscenti please paraphrase the effect of the Brexit Party decision. Who are the Brexit party supporters and who did they originally support?
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Leavers aren't gullible, the issue is that you don't understand Leavers priorities.
You thought the backstop was good. We thought the backstop was bad. Any time I ask you to explain how the deal is worse you come back in a circular logic that the deal is worse because there's no backstop at the end [and you're defining the backstop as good] whereas of course we thought the backstop was bad so it not being there is in fact very good.
Starting from a first principle of viewing the backstop as BAD please explain how Boris's deal is worse for having removed the dreaded undemocratic backstop?
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
I think Richard could very reasonably argue that it was indeed very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed which is why Boris had to compromise so much. He certainly didn't say it would be impossible. And no one would claim Boris didn't have to make big compromises to get what he wanted.
The compromises were sensible compromises though and ones it is to May's shame she never agreed.
Its an example of why negotiations are often not zero sum. Boris's deal is better for both leavers and the EU than May's original deal was, good job May's original deal was defeated!
Mr. Foremain, desiring we should do something you don't want because it'll annoy people you dislike is the same sort of reasoning that led some pro-EU Labour voters to vote leave to 'kick Cameron'.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Philip believes everything that Bozo and Cummings tells him, so yes he does think that, but of course he is wrong.
No I don't, I've never stuck to a party line and disagreed with Boris for instance when he backed MV3 - I said I couldn't support it and Boris was wrong to do so. I've been entirely consistent thank you.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
I think Richard could very reasonably argue that it was indeed very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed which is why Boris had to compromise so much. He certainly didn't say it would be impossible. And no one would claim Boris didn't have to make big compromises to get what he wanted.
The compromises were sensible compromises though and ones it is to May's shame she never agreed.
Its an example of why negotiations are often not zero sum. Boris's deal is better for both leavers and the EU than May's original deal was, good job May's original deal was defeated!
I thought putting a border down the Irish Sea was something no British PM could ever do?
I have not seen this on here, but I know @Cyclefree was talking about it.
"Boris Johnson's Conservative party has received donations from nine Russian donors, with suspected links to the Kremlin, according to an official report which has been suppressed by the prime minister. Johnson chose to block publication of the report amid reported fears it could cost him the upcoming general election. Leaked details from the report tie Johnson's party to London-based Russian oligarchs, some of whom have known ties to the Russian security services. There has been a surge in donations from prominent Russians to the Conservative party over the past year."
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Leavers aren't gullible, the issue is that you don't understand Leavers priorities.
You thought the backstop was good. We thought the backstop was bad. Any time I ask you to explain how the deal is worse you come back in a circular logic that the deal is worse because there's no backstop at the end [and you're defining the backstop as good] whereas of course we thought the backstop was bad so it not being there is in fact very good.
Starting from a first principle of viewing the backstop as BAD please explain how Boris's deal is worse for having removed the dreaded undemocratic backstop?
Because in the event that we don't agree a trade deal with the EU, the alternative to May's backstop is No Deal, complete with tariffs and all the other disasters for trade (which, remember,, is what Boris was desperate to avoid), combined - amazingly - with a situation where British companies have to fill in customs forms to send British goods to another part of Britain. So Boris has simply, by your reckoning, simply put off the decision about crashing out for 11 months, in return for permanent damage to the UK's internal coherence.
I think there will be a deal quickly if Johnson is (a) clear about what he wants, (b) is prepared to stomach the consequences of that choice, (c) that is acceptable to the ERG.
In the case of the Withdrawal Agreement that was (a) allow trade deals and regulatory divergence to be possible for GB, (b) a customs border between GB and NI, (c) yes.
I've no idea if he can satisfy those conditions for an EU trade deal.
It's going to be very hard to get a deal IMO. The sticking point is not going to be money, it will be regulatory divergence. Many people say that it should be easy because we start from a position of regulatory alignment, but that misses the point: the questions are going to be: what happens as the EU changes its regulations, or we want to change ours, and who is going to adjudicate on any discrepancy [spoiler: it will be the ECJ]? Pinning down all that stuff in legal terms is not going to be easy, unless we simply sign up to following all EU regulations as they change; anything less, and the EU states will be extremely suspicious that we're trying to undermine them with lowered standards.
It's largely tosh anyway, of course: the EU is a regulatory superpower (even if it's not any other kind of superpower), and in practice we'll follow it anyway. But it is going to cause a massive row in the Conservative Party when Boris has to sign up to dynamic regulatory alignment, and a separate row when he has to admit that it can't all be tied up next year.
I'm not sure that anyone cares about divergence on goods, ultimately exports to the EU will have to meet them anyway, even if the government chooses to diverge any company looking to export will need to ensure they meey EU importation criteria.
Services regulation is definitely somewhere divergence could be worth a lot. Not being shackled to the slowest moving member has a lot of advantages and European companies wanting to purchase those services can do so via a branch office based in the UK.
Regulatory alignment on goods buggers a trade deal with the US.
How does this work for Canada, who have an EU deal, NAFTA and CPTPP? Genuine question.
Mr. Foremain, desiring we should do something you don't want because it'll annoy people you dislike is the same sort of reasoning that led some pro-EU Labour voters to vote leave to 'kick Cameron'.
I agree really with you Mr Dancer, and I don't dislike all Leavers. You and Mr Tyndall seem jolly nice chaps to have a beer with. There are others though, for whom I might feel a sense of schadenfreude
Not only has Farage handed Boris a boost, but the Scunthorpe steel works announcement saving 4,000 jobs plus 20,000 in the supply chain has been accompanied by glowing tributes to the government from all the unions involved in the negotiations
But any deal beyond December 31st 2020 depends on paying money to the EU that we are not currently committed to giving to the EU.
That makes things far harder than many people expect.
Does it? Or does it give us leverage?
What leverage does it give the UK? We’ll give you money if you give us an extension is not leverage, it is supplicancy. And it would kill Johnson’s leadership. The simple fact is that Johnson is making promises he cannot keep. It will get him past the election and our departure from the EU, but after that he will have to start dealing with reality. And his choice will be significant economic harm or a Tory civil war.
"You'll only get money from us if you make it worth our while" is leverage and if he has a healthy majority it both won't kill Johnson's leadership and he'll be taken seriously.
They’ve got the money they wanted from us. It’s in the Withdrawal Agreement. If we want an extension we’ll have to pay more. That’s not leverage, it’s a fact of life. If we don’t want to pay more, we’ll not extend and we’ll have a bare bones WTO agreement that, now the Irish have what they want on Northern Ireland, will hurt us a whole lot more than every EU member state.
Didn’t they want 100bn or some ludicrous sum like that? Instead, it is a lot less, and payable over thirty years.
I only remember that briefly being speculated and far more than other estimated. I cant say for certain but it sounded like nonsense to make another figure look better in comparison.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Leavers aren't gullible, the issue is that you don't understand Leavers priorities.
You thought the backstop was good. We thought the backstop was bad. Any time I ask you to explain how the deal is worse you come back in a circular logic that the deal is worse because there's no backstop at the end [and you're defining the backstop as good] whereas of course we thought the backstop was bad so it not being there is in fact very good.
Starting from a first principle of viewing the backstop as BAD please explain how Boris's deal is worse for having removed the dreaded undemocratic backstop?
Because the alternative to May's backstop is No Deal, complete with tariffs and all the other disasters for trade (which, remember,, is what Boris was desperate to avoid), combined - amazingly - with a situation where British companies have to fill in customs forms to send British goods to another part of Britain. So Boris has simply, by your reckoning, simply put off the decision about crashing out for 11 months, in return for permanent damage to the UK's internal coherence.
No need to worry about the UK’s internal coherence because @HYUFD will simply put down any dissent with military force.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
I think Richard could very reasonably argue that it was indeed very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed which is why Boris had to compromise so much. He certainly didn't say it would be impossible. And no one would claim Boris didn't have to make big compromises to get what he wanted.
The compromises were sensible compromises though and ones it is to May's shame she never agreed.
Its an example of why negotiations are often not zero sum. Boris's deal is better for both leavers and the EU than May's original deal was, good job May's original deal was defeated!
I thought putting a border down the Irish Sea was something no British PM could ever do?
Indeed which is why its not been done.
Devolution on the other hand is something that's existed for decades.
The polls said for a long time Leavers priortised Brexit over the union. By devolving the Irish border problem to Stormont its no longer our problem and we get what we want and democracy is preserved. A perfect fig leaf for everyone to get what they want!
The Farage/BXP announcement comes as no surprise despite their vitriolic condemnation of the Johnson WA just a few weeks ago. Oh well...
The Tory triumphalists seem in full cry this afternoon but I'm reminded of a contribution from Marquee Mark based on his canvassing experiences. There seems little positive enthusiasm for Johnson and the Conservatives apart from the "he's a bit of a bloke" tendency.
Winning a landslide from this suggests no one has very high expectations of a Johnson majority Government and they're unlikely to be disappointed so the question is how quickly the shine will wear off - mid-January perhaps and it could be a long hard mid-term for the Conservatives as promises unravel and the day-to-day takes over.
As I said this morning, I will hold the new Government to account on how it deals with the unfortunate in society (the fortunate are fine, they don't need much help). In addition, the campaign spending pledges/hostages to fortune (delete as appropriate) will ensure there will be plenty of scrutiny for the new Government
Another big point..its 4.15pm in london and its very dark..in a months time it will be very dark even earlier. Getting the vote out will be the biggest problem in most areas.
Street lights?
Remind me.... What is a street?
I live somewhere "where the streets have no name".
Quite literally. Rather amused me when we moved in.
You have a bit of a blind spot as in amongst Tory triumphalists multiple people immediately thought the plan bodes very Ill for the tories .
I must admit on reflection a lot will depend on where you think the BXP get its votes. If they are ex-Conservatives it's fair to say the Conservatives would benefit if they returned to the fold. If, however, the BXP is mainly ex-Labour votes, what would be the impact? Would such voters vote Conservative? In some cases, yes, in others they might choose to stay at home.
It will be fascinating to see if it makes the difference between a small Conservative majority and a large one.
I'm reserving judgement/too cowardly speculate on that at this time.
Not only has Farage handed Boris a boost, but the Scunthorpe steel works announcement saving 4,000 jobs plus 20,000 in the supply chain has been accompanied by glowing tributes to the government from all the unions involved in the negotiations
This is misleading @Big_G_NorthWales. They have not confirmed how many jobs will remain.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Leavers aren't gullible, the issue is that you don't understand Leavers priorities.
You thought the backstop was good. We thought the backstop was bad. Any time I ask you to explain how the deal is worse you come back in a circular logic that the deal is worse because there's no backstop at the end [and you're defining the backstop as good] whereas of course we thought the backstop was bad so it not being there is in fact very good.
Starting from a first principle of viewing the backstop as BAD please explain how Boris's deal is worse for having removed the dreaded undemocratic backstop?
Because in the event that we don't agree a trade deal with the EU, the alternative to May's backstop is No Deal, complete with tariffs and all the other disasters for trade (which, remember,, is what Boris was desperate to avoid), combined - amazingly - with a situation where British companies have to fill in customs forms to send British goods to another part of Britain. So Boris has simply, by your reckoning, simply put off the decision about crashing out for 11 months, in return for permanent damage to the UK's internal coherence.
But we prefer No Deal as the alternative to the backstop remember, so why is that worse?
And with the backstop gone I think a deal is more likely.
That's a good point: since TBP are withdrawing in Tory-held seats, you'll see an benefit to the Tories in national polling figures which will be disproportionate to the effect in marginal seats.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Philip believes everything that Bozo and Cummings tells him, so yes he does think that, but of course he is wrong.
No I don't, I've never stuck to a party line and disagreed with Boris for instance when he backed MV3 - I said I couldn't support it and Boris was wrong to do so. I've been entirely consistent thank you.
Of course, I am sure there have been occasions when you might not have agreed with your hero, though I sense it is not too often. I suspect that if he said that he told you he had delivered an edict banning the word gullible from the English dictionary you would be straight down to Waterstones to check it out.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
I think Richard could very reasonably argue that it was indeed very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed which is why Boris had to compromise so much. He certainly didn't say it would be impossible. And no one would claim Boris didn't have to make big compromises to get what he wanted.
The compromises were sensible compromises though and ones it is to May's shame she never agreed.
Its an example of why negotiations are often not zero sum. Boris's deal is better for both leavers and the EU than May's original deal was, good job May's original deal was defeated!
I thought putting a border down the Irish Sea was something no British PM could ever do?
Indeed which is why its not been done.
Devolution on the other hand is something that's existed for decades.
The polls said for a long time Leavers priortised Brexit over the union. By devolving the Irish border problem to Stormont its no longer our problem and we get what we want and democracy is preserved. A perfect fig leaf for everyone to get what they want!
Mr. Foremain, desiring we should do something you don't want because it'll annoy people you dislike is the same sort of reasoning that led some pro-EU Labour voters to vote leave to 'kick Cameron'.
I agree really with you Mr Dancer, and I don't dislike all Leavers. You and Mr Tyndall seem jolly nice chaps to have a beer with. There are others though, for whom I might feel a sense of schadenfreude
Schadenfreude Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium...
For all of his faults, Boris is a million times better than the alternative. That will be good enough for plenty of people at the upcoming election.
The alternative is a hung parliament and a Labour minority delivering Ref2 and little else. I am no fan of Ref2 but for most Remainers this should be preferable to a Con majority which ends the Remain dream. The last slim hope rests on differential turnout allied to VERY smart seat by seat bespoke tactical anti Tory / Brexit voting.
At some point Johnson will no longer be able to lie. That’s why I think 31st January 2020 will be as good as it gets for him - and the Tories.
Yes, it's going to be a long hard early 2020s for the Conservatives as their promises unravel and their commitments go undelivered.
The problem is the credible alternative needs to be there for 2024 and ideally well before that.
Yes. If it is a huge Tory win now they could take quite the hit and still win in 2024. I'm giving it a few weeks to see how labour do before thinking they will win now though.
That's a good point: since TBP are withdrawing in Tory-held seats, you'll see an benefit to the Tories in national polling figures which will be disproportionate to the effect in marginal seats.
But it will cheer up poor old HY. For the time being, anyway.
I have not seen this on here, but I know @Cyclefree was talking about it.
"Boris Johnson's Conservative party has received donations from nine Russian donors, with suspected links to the Kremlin, according to an official report which has been suppressed by the prime minister. Johnson chose to block publication of the report amid reported fears it could cost him the upcoming general election. Leaked details from the report tie Johnson's party to London-based Russian oligarchs, some of whom have known ties to the Russian security services. There has been a surge in donations from prominent Russians to the Conservative party over the past year."
Is that the one Charles assured us had nothing in it, otherwise it would already have been leaked ?
Or was the another one ?
It's a very weak attack. 'Long-term Russian-origin UK citizens, opponents of Putin, who have openly and perfectly legally donated to the Conservatives for years have, er, continued to donate openly and perfectly legally to the Conservatives'.
You also thought it was going to be very hard to get a deal with the backstop removed didn't you?
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Yes, I was right on the first, and wrong on the second, for the moment. Your point is what, exactly? That the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
You were wrong on the first, the backstop is gone.
It's reverted to the original version, more favourable to the EU. Yes, I was wrong to believe that Boris was serious in his pledges, and wrong in that I underestimated the gullibilty of Leavers. I was of course perfectly right that we didn't leave on October 31st.
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Leavers aren't gullible, the issue is that you don't understand Leavers priorities.
You thought the backstop was good. We thought the backstop was bad. Any time I ask you to explain how the deal is worse you come back in a circular logic that the deal is worse because there's no backstop at the end [and you're defining the backstop as good] whereas of course we thought the backstop was bad so it not being there is in fact very good.
Starting from a first principle of viewing the backstop as BAD please explain how Boris's deal is worse for having removed the dreaded undemocratic backstop?
Because in the event that we don't agree a trade deal with the EU, the alternative to May's backstop is No Deal, complete with tariffs and all the other disasters for trade (which, remember,, is what Boris was desperate to avoid), combined - amazingly - with a situation where British companies have to fill in customs forms to send British goods to another part of Britain. So Boris has simply, by your reckoning, simply put off the decision about crashing out for 11 months, in return for permanent damage to the UK's internal coherence.
But we prefer No Deal as the alternative to the backstop remember, so why is that worse?
And with the backstop gone I think a deal is more likely.
You prefer No Deal, Philip. Let’s see what everyone else is thinking in 12 months’ time.
Mr. Foremain, desiring we should do something you don't want because it'll annoy people you dislike is the same sort of reasoning that led some pro-EU Labour voters to vote leave to 'kick Cameron'.
I agree really with you Mr Dancer, and I don't dislike all Leavers. You and Mr Tyndall seem jolly nice chaps to have a beer with. There are others though, for whom I might feel a sense of schadenfreude
Schadenfreude Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium...
I have not seen this on here, but I know @Cyclefree was talking about it.
"Boris Johnson's Conservative party has received donations from nine Russian donors, with suspected links to the Kremlin, according to an official report which has been suppressed by the prime minister. Johnson chose to block publication of the report amid reported fears it could cost him the upcoming general election. Leaked details from the report tie Johnson's party to London-based Russian oligarchs, some of whom have known ties to the Russian security services. There has been a surge in donations from prominent Russians to the Conservative party over the past year."
Is that the one Charles assured us had nothing in it, otherwise it would already have been leaked ?
Or was the another one ?
It's a very weak attack. 'Long-term Russian-origin UK citizens, opponents of Putin, who have openly and perfectly legally donated to the Conservatives for years have, er, continued to donate openly and perfectly legally to the Conservatives'.
If they are opponents of Putin, why do they have "links to the Kremlin"?
But we prefer No Deal as the alternative to the backstop remember, so why is that worse?
And with the backstop gone I think a deal is more likely.
It's worse objectively because it puts a border down the Irish Sea, one of the Boris broken pledges. It's also worse from your point of view because it would simply waste 11 months during which we're paying the hated Danegeld.
And of course it makes a deal much less likely, unless Boris capitulates ignominiously. He now no longer has the fall-back position of the backstop, which was massively to our advantage; instead he'll again be panicking about whether he can shaft the ERG against a hard deadline.
I have not seen this on here, but I know @Cyclefree was talking about it.
"Boris Johnson's Conservative party has received donations from nine Russian donors, with suspected links to the Kremlin, according to an official report which has been suppressed by the prime minister. Johnson chose to block publication of the report amid reported fears it could cost him the upcoming general election. Leaked details from the report tie Johnson's party to London-based Russian oligarchs, some of whom have known ties to the Russian security services. There has been a surge in donations from prominent Russians to the Conservative party over the past year."
Is that the one Charles assured us had nothing in it, otherwise it would already have been leaked ?
Or was the another one ?
It's a very weak attack. 'Long-term Russian-origin UK citizens, opponents of Putin, who have openly and perfectly legally donated to the Conservatives for years have, er, continued to donate openly and perfectly legally to the Conservatives'.
If they are opponents of Putin, why do they have "links to the Kremlin"?
I think opponents of Putin are somewhat similar to opponents to Harold Shand in the Long Good Friday,
Not only has Farage handed Boris a boost, but the Scunthorpe steel works announcement saving 4,000 jobs plus 20,000 in the supply chain has been accompanied by glowing tributes to the government from all the unions involved in the negotiations
After screwing up over SSI at Redcar, the government was super-sensitive this time round.
For all of his faults, Boris is a million times better than the alternative. That will be good enough for plenty of people at the upcoming election.
The alternative is a hung parliament and a Labour minority delivering Ref2 and little else. I am no fan of Ref2 but for most Remainers this should be preferable to a Con majority which ends the Remain dream. The last slim hope rests on differential turnout allied to VERY smart seat by seat bespoke tactical anti Tory / Brexit voting.
That assumes attachment to the EU > aversion to Corbyn as PM. Which will not necessarily be the case even for Remainers. That sai, Kinbalu, I am still not expecting a decisive Con victory! A 1992 style majority is right at the upper end of my expectations.
If they are opponents of Putin, why do they have "links to the Kremlin"?
Which rich Russians didn't, at some point in the past, have links to the Kremlin? That doesn't mean they are best pals with Putin now. In fact some of them are on his distinctly not-best-pals list, and accordingly pay a lot of money for security.
Comments
It will be fascinating to see if it makes the difference between a small Conservative majority and a large one.
"Boris Johnson's Conservative party has received donations from nine Russian donors, with suspected links to the Kremlin, according to an official report which has been suppressed by the prime minister. Johnson chose to block publication of the report amid reported fears it could cost him the upcoming general election. Leaked details from the report tie Johnson's party to London-based Russian oligarchs, some of whom have known ties to the Russian security services. There has been a surge in donations from prominent Russians to the Conservative party over the past year."
https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-blocked-report-naming-tory-donors-linked-to-kremlin-2019-11
It's largely tosh anyway, of course: the EU is a regulatory superpower (even if it's not any other kind of superpower), and in practice we'll follow it anyway. But it is going to cause a massive row in the Conservative Party when Boris has to sign up to dynamic regulatory alignment, and a separate row when he has to admit that it can't all be tied up next year.
Quite literally. Rather amused me when we moved in.
And you also thought Johnson made a mistake in making an obsession of the Halloween date and would be suffering in the polls by November with the Brexit Party surging because of Boris's mistake didn't you?
Also a dangerous game for ITV, especially if they lose the case and an investor or two. It could go either way.
No, funnily enough, I do not really fear that Boris will govern as a ghastly right-wing nationalist and reactionary. My problem with him is that he has no principles, no integrity, no sense of service to anything bar himself. I do not like to see the sort of low-rent behaviour he has indulged in being rewarded with our highest elected office. I hate that we have such a person as our PM and are likely to give him a big election win.
So, betting aside, I hope your call on the GE is better than mine.
A week old but new
Fieidwork Oct 30 to Nov 5
But, to return to the point at issue: you think that the EU are going to accept frictionless, tariff-free access to the Single Market without regulatory protection? Really?
Services regulation is definitely somewhere divergence could be worth a lot. Not being shackled to the slowest moving member has a lot of advantages and European companies wanting to purchase those services can do so via a branch office based in the UK.
Unite the country (still pending)
Defeat Jeremy Corbyn (looks imminent)
Energise the country (measurement issues)
On services I agree it's more nuanced. I expect will end up with the highest common denominator of EU and US regulations on financial services.
They don’t like Jezza either mind. Or the Tories.
The problem is the credible alternative needs to be there for 2024 and ideally well before that.
I don't know what the best deal is that he can get from the EU with that limitation. If it's more than nothing we can be sure that he will tell us it's the best trade deal in history.
You thought the backstop was good. We thought the backstop was bad. Any time I ask you to explain how the deal is worse you come back in a circular logic that the deal is worse because there's no backstop at the end [and you're defining the backstop as good] whereas of course we thought the backstop was bad so it not being there is in fact very good.
Starting from a first principle of viewing the backstop as BAD please explain how Boris's deal is worse for having removed the dreaded undemocratic backstop?
Its an example of why negotiations are often not zero sum. Boris's deal is better for both leavers and the EU than May's original deal was, good job May's original deal was defeated!
Or was the another one ?
Not only has Farage handed Boris a boost, but the Scunthorpe steel works announcement saving 4,000 jobs plus 20,000 in the supply chain has been accompanied by glowing tributes to the government from all the unions involved in the negotiations
Devolution on the other hand is something that's existed for decades.
The polls said for a long time Leavers priortised Brexit over the union. By devolving the Irish border problem to Stormont its no longer our problem and we get what we want and democracy is preserved. A perfect fig leaf for everyone to get what they want!
https://twitter.com/AyoCaesar/status/1193601752320401409?s=20
And with the backstop gone I think a deal is more likely.
Tochter aus Elysium...
"Neil Warnock sacked"
Now let's see if I win the cryptic crossword of the day.
BOOM
And of course it makes a deal much less likely, unless Boris capitulates ignominiously. He now no longer has the fall-back position of the backstop, which was massively to our advantage; instead he'll again be panicking about whether he can shaft the ERG against a hard deadline.
Seems at odds with the consensus here about independents
Great news for the employees and their families.
That sai, Kinbalu, I am still not expecting a decisive Con victory! A 1992 style majority is right at the upper end of my expectations.