An excellent article indeed - it all sounds very exciting!
Even in today's revolting climate this article is a bit breathlessly overdone. You wouldn't notice from reading it that we have OMOV elections and a parliamentary democracy or that the Gramsci tactics have not mostly come from the centre right.
Would you do notice is that a good number of elites who have been very used to getting their way are having their noses put out of joint by actual people with actual opinions.
Gramsci was precisely the name that sprang to mind while reading it - the right has finally cottoned on to the concept of cultural hegemony, and its originators don't like to share!
"Chief among these fantasists are unelected advisors. Many criticisms can be made of our MPs, but some of the main instigators of instability in British politics since 2010 have had no electoral mandate at all - Steve Hilton, Matthew Elliott, Fiona Hill, Nick Timothy, and Cummings himself. "
Did this unelected advisor business only start in 2010? I can think of one from before then who could be called an instigator of instability - to the British Labour market, our relationship with the EU, and to the Middle East for starters
Interesting that the Tories lead Labour for Holyrood votes but trail for Westminster ones. That may tell us something about the toxicity of both Leonard and Johnson in Scotland.
The SNP would hoover up so maybe only Ian Murray and a couple of LDs left standing, I reckon, as non-SNP MPs. However, it may indicate some potential for tactical voting.
Rejoining the EU in the next decade is for the birds.
You'd have though so. But I think it was one of the SeanTs who pointed out that Brexit could go so badly that rejoin is a viable manifesto plan for the 2024 election. In which case 2029 is possible.
Had the May and Johnson carefully planted the UK just outside the EU stockade, some variant of EEA with some controls on movement of people, it's likely that would have stuck. Divergence would have happened, as the EU 27 got closer together. Maybe Sweden and some others would have joined us. There are good structural reasons why they didn't go that path, maybe they had no choice even in Autumn 2016. But it would have created a Brexit that stuck, because nobody would really have had much pragmatic cause for complaint.
The Brexit on offer is much more problematic. Even if it works overall (hmm...) the effect on some individuals and sectors will be horrible. There will be people with very valid complaints and Brejoin will be the answer to their problems- even if it comes with horrible strings attached.
Meanwhile the geography and demography won't go away. There's a Brexit Bulge generation; they grew up in the 1950s, were the main source of Out votes in 1975 and Leave votes in 2016. With great respect, they won't be voting forever and there's not much reason to think that the generations below them will become less cosmopolitan as they age.
More voters think Brexit is a bad idea than a good one- and that's before any chickens come home to roost. And Starmer? He's a smart lawyer. He'll ask the public what they think about Brejoin if/when he knows what their answer will be. That's likely to happen, but now is not the time.
Do you think the EU would have us back as full members?
I think the EU are smart enough to distinguish between a country and its former leaders.
The reality is the country is and has always been divided on this and either side can have a majority at a given point in time. Its not just our leaders.
Not sure why that would change in the 2030s, and its way too disruptive for everyone to turn the UK-EU relationship into hokey-cokey. Some form of associate membership feels much more likely to be palatable to the EU than full membership, even if the UK wants to rejoin at a particular point of time.
I think I count as an arch-Remainer... but I would accept EEA
From the EU perspective I think a tiered membership structure with paths for members to move both up and down is far more robust long term. 3 or 4 different tiers, those wanting the most integration can press ahead, without having to drag others along who are more sceptical.
If the EU had made this simple move there would be no problem. It is obvious (though only to Brexit supporters) that the EU intended to have the characteristics of a nation state not a big trade agreement. Remainers are still often in denial about the direction of travel for the EU.
Rejoining the EU in the next decade is for the birds.
You'd have though so. But I think it was one of the SeanTs who pointed out that Brexit could go so badly that rejoin is a viable manifesto plan for the 2024 election. In which case 2029 is possible.
Had the May and Johnson carefully planted the UK just outside the EU stockade, some variant of EEA with some controls on movement of people, it's likely that would have stuck. Divergence would have happened, as the EU 27 got closer together. Maybe Sweden and some others would have joined us. There are good structural reasons why they didn't go that path, maybe they had no choice even in Autumn 2016. But it would have created a Brexit that stuck, because nobody would really have had much pragmatic cause for complaint.
The Brexit on offer is much more problematic. Even if it works overall (hmm...) the effect on some individuals and sectors will be horrible. There will be people with very valid complaints and Brejoin will be the answer to their problems- even if it comes with horrible strings attached.
Meanwhile the geography and demography won't go away. There's a Brexit Bulge generation; they grew up in the 1950s, were the main source of Out votes in 1975 and Leave votes in 2016. With great respect, they won't be voting forever and there's not much reason to think that the generations below them will become less cosmopolitan as they age.
More voters think Brexit is a bad idea than a good one- and that's before any chickens come home to roost. And Starmer? He's a smart lawyer. He'll ask the public what they think about Brejoin if/when he knows what their answer will be. That's likely to happen, but now is not the time.
Do you think the EU would have us back as full members?
I think the EU are smart enough to distinguish between a country and its former leaders.
The reality is the country is and has always been divided on this and either side can have a majority at a given point in time. Its not just our leaders.
Not sure why that would change in the 2030s, and its way too disruptive for everyone to turn the UK-EU relationship into hokey-cokey. Some form of associate membership feels much more likely to be palatable to the EU than full membership, even if the UK wants to rejoin at a particular point of time.
I think I count as an arch-Remainer... but I would accept EEA
From the EU perspective I think a tiered membership structure with paths for members to move both up and down is far more robust long term. 3 or 4 different tiers, those wanting the most integration can press ahead, without having to drag others along who are more sceptical.
If the EU had made this simple move there would be no problem. It is obvious (though only to Brexit supporters) that the EU intended to have the characteristics of a nation state not a big trade agreement. Remainers are still often in denial about the direction of travel for the EU.
It is obvious that some people and politicians in the EU want that. But its far from a clear majority across the board and even further from a clear majority in every state.
Forgetting the UK and its place in the EU, my suggestion would give the EU more cohesion, success and longevity by allowing space for dissenting countries. If the benefits from being closer to a super state eventually are clear cut, then most countries would eventually choose that. If the more federalist independent nation state option is better, then most countries would end up there instead.
I think rejection of that option was institutionalised 15 or 30 years ago.
Back me or sack me, but nothing in between or you are out.
Probably
Betfair money going on Johnson leaving this year. I grabbed this picture of Johnson when he was listening to Starmer's 3rd question at PMQs on Wednesday.
I really, really hope November looks like this. It would be the best thing for America. For both the left and the right.
Like a horror film a stake needs to be driven through the heart of Trumpism to prevent it returning. Hopefully some semblance of sanity can be restored to the GOP if this result happens, like 2019 driving away the Corbynistas.
As for the left this is perhaps the last chance for a dry and dull moderate like Biden to be put up. If he loses then expect the Democrats to veer sharply left in a "get out the vote" drive and put up someone in the AOC/Sanders ultra-left, ultra-woke mode . . . and they might go on to win after eight years of Trump in the Oval Office.
We don't need Trumpism or Wokism. This is a time for dull and dry Biden.
This result is at the high end of expectations for Biden, but is just as likely as Trump managing to eek out a win. Biden's chances continue to be vastly understated on here IMHO.
The other important aspect for November is what happens in the Senate, given teh high likelihood of there being one, possibly two liberal Supreme Court justices retiring in the next two years (Ginsburg and Breyer)
My guess on the Senate right now is that the Democrats will fall one short, the Republicans will have 51 Senators.
The polling in IA, MT and GA seems to have turned against them over the last month. The margins have narrowed in NC and ME, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were split.
It will make life very hard for Biden if he does win the Presidency.
Interesting that the Tories lead Labour for Holyrood votes but trail for Westminster ones. That may tell us something about the toxicity of both Leonard and Johnson in Scotland.
The constituency vote is what matters for the SNP and the list vote for the other parties as the SNP will max out on the constituencies while other parties will top up on the list.
It will be to try to reconcile the MPs of a freedom loving party to the deeply illiberal measures he has brought in.
As for being also supposedly the party of Laura Norder, he won't mention it.
When this is all over, it would be great if Tissue Price wrote a header explaining what is what like being a backbencher under these fuqwits, and how close it came to his expectations
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
@Casino_Royale can I ask you a question please - notwithstanding the "international law" elements which I can understand being a concern on their own right . . . you seem very keen on the idea of compromising to get a deal, even if it means compromising on the LPF.
Would you be OK with the EU telling the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer that a tax cut that Parliament had passed in the Budget was unacceptable "state aid"? Is that in your view an acceptable price worth paying in order to get a deal, or does the idea of that disturb you?
Where's the evidence we wouldn't be able to do that in a no deal scenario without these retrograde measures?
We might be able to in a no deal scenario. There's multiple reports it could have been an issue, but that's murky and not what I was trying to get at.
That's why I said notwithstanding that, he seems to want a deal even if we weren't doing these measures whereas you seem to be against both these measures and against compromising on the LPF - he seems (if I understand correctly) to be happy to compromise on the LPF itself in order to get a deal which is why I wanted to ask the question. Does that make sense?
Again, that's not evidence. It's bullshit chatter from overzealous Eurocrats. We're in a position where we've use first strike capability and in doing so handed the initiative to the opposing side.
Just because we have the ability to go for a first strike, it doesn't mean we should. The fact is neither of us know what the EU would do if we cut corporation tax to 10% in a no deal scenario. Chances are they would just live with it and the theoretical ability to block it via the NI protocol remains theoretical because they wouldn't want to be in a first strike position either.
Nevermind.
I wasn't trying to discuss this 'strike' as you put it. Just ask the question in isolation as to whether handing the EU power to determine that a UK tax cut passed by the Chancellor is acceptable in exchange for a deal, or if that is troublesome.
Once again, there's no evidence that we've handed this power over in the WA. Them asking for it in the FTA isn't the same thing. That they are asking for it is pretty good evidence that they don't think they'd have it under a no deal scenario.
This is similar to what I said yesterday evening - why make it an issue now - why not just break it when we have to? The fact that they are making it an issue now, indicates politics, and it looks very like Doris's tactics during the prorogation fuss that led to Boris's landslide.
I don't know what they are hoping to do, but the fact is that nobody on PB has ventured to predict any of the future 'moves'. We've responded to one move with outrage or disgust, we've seen some response from the EU, but we're just reporting what is, not trying to predict what will happen.
To be fair, several people have tried to work out what might be going on- usually along the lines of "something bad is about to happen, and No 10 intended to use the row to be able to pin the blame for the something on Remoaners/Brussels/both. Sort of like the Didn't Die In A Ditch situation."
The curious thing is the way that Starmer hasn't risen to the bait at all, and the EU haven't much; their deadline to sort the Internal Market Bill is pretty much the same mid-October date that everyone agrees is the point of no return.
And that's the bit that's baffling. Something that is nasty, ruthless but clever politics in one branch of history is stupid in another. It's why game theory is hard, and hardly ever generates useful results. The outcomes depend too much on how aware the other player is of the game being played and the strategy being used.
It's striking that Johnson is keen to talk about Brexit even though Starmer has no interest. Next few PMQs -
"Prime Minister, you said that you'd be getting Brexit done so we look forward to this happening. We on this side of the house wish you all the best in getting a good trade deal with the EU."
"Ha. Yet again my right honourable friend, the leader of the Opposition, and the whole of his ragbag remoaner army take the side of Brussels against Britain. Well Nessun Dorma, I say, Nessun Dorma. And in particular the will of the British people that come hell or high water we must throw off the yoke of ... "
"Mmm. Now then, turning to the far more important matter of the impact of Covid 19 on our care homes. How does the Prime Minister intend to prevent a recurrence of the dreadful outcomes we saw earlier this year? Have lessons been learnt and if so which ones and how?"
"Ha. I will take no lessons on Covid from the party opposite. The party opposite who instead of Glutus Maximus are yet again are taking the side of Brussels against Britain. The party opposite who still, even now, refuse to accept that the clear will of the British people is that come hell or high water we must throw off the yoke of ..."
It will be to try to reconcile the MPs of a freedom loving party to the deeply illiberal measures he has brought in.
As for being also supposedly the party of Laura Norder, he won't mention it.
When this is all over, it would be great if Tissue Price wrote a header explaining what is what like being a backbencher under these fuqwits, and how close it came to his expectations
An excellent article indeed - it all sounds very exciting!
Even in today's revolting climate this article is a bit breathlessly overdone. You wouldn't notice from reading it that we have OMOV elections and a parliamentary democracy or that the Gramsci tactics have not mostly come from the centre right.
Would you do notice is that a good number of elites who have been very used to getting their way are having their noses put out of joint by actual people with actual opinions.
Gramsci was precisely the name that sprang to mind while reading it - the right has finally cottoned on to the concept of cultural hegemony, and its originators don't like to share!
"Chief among these fantasists are unelected advisors. Many criticisms can be made of our MPs, but some of the main instigators of instability in British politics since 2010 have had no electoral mandate at all - Steve Hilton, Matthew Elliott, Fiona Hill, Nick Timothy, and Cummings himself. "
Did this unelected advisor business only start in 2010? I can think of one from before then who could be called an instigator of instability - to the British Labour market, our relationship with the EU, and to the Middle East for starters
I think the point is, advisers were generally his masters' voice, rather than supposed visionaries. Campbell, for all his power, never pursued a course of action that wasn't sanctioned from the top (his own politics are arguably to the left of Blair). Other key advisers, were likewise, sellers of the message or pollsters, or traditional youngish policy wonks. Cummings is arguably the apogee of a process the Tories landed upon with Hilton (but then abandoned) where politicians were the salespeople for gurus, or philosopher kings who determine the politics and tactics of the government - who also happen to have been believers in the benefits of creative destruction and flouting past norms.
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
Agreement in principle, subject to approval by the National Diet in January. Which gives the ND a bit longer to think about it than the 48 hours they have had so far.
Explain how much they'll be able to steal once they can give out taxpayer's money as state aid to whoever they like, and tell each individual Tory MP what their cut will be.
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
Agreement in principle, subject to approval by the National Diet in January. Which gives the ND a bit longer to think about it than the 48 hours they have had so far.
I wouldn't have thought they'd cause any trouble over it.
Yes I get all the don't hug your granny, overwhelm the NHS, etc but really look at the measures restricting freedom we have for what looks like a 0.1% infection rate.
@Casino_Royale can I ask you a question please - notwithstanding the "international law" elements which I can understand being a concern on their own right . . . you seem very keen on the idea of compromising to get a deal, even if it means compromising on the LPF.
Would you be OK with the EU telling the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer that a tax cut that Parliament had passed in the Budget was unacceptable "state aid"? Is that in your view an acceptable price worth paying in order to get a deal, or does the idea of that disturb you?
It disturbs me but I don't think that qualifies as State Aid.
To be State Aid it has to be an advantage conferred on a particular organisation using state resources on a selective basis. So a general tax cut or wouldn't apply - it'd need to be a specific tax break to a company with enhanced capital allowances, for example.
We (as well as the EU) already sometimes do a bit of that in agriculture, R&D and energy in times of economic crisis so I don't think it's that controversial. It's a question of whether you're taking the piss or not (like cutting Rolls Royce corporation tax to zero and subsidising their exports for 5 years for example versus bailing them out with cash to keep them from going under in a time of crisis).
I really struggle to see how something sensible can't be negotiated on this with a sensible co-enforcement mechanism.
Yes I get all the don't hug your granny, overwhelm the NHS, etc but really look at the measures restricting freedom we have for what looks like a 0.1% infection rate.
If it stays at 0.1% and doesn't go back into exponential growth as has happened in France then I think that is the idea.
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
Agreement in principle, subject to approval by the National Diet in January. Which gives the ND a bit longer to think about it than the 48 hours they have had so far.
I wouldn't have thought they'd cause any trouble over it.
Yes, why would they, as they don't give a monkey's whether the border is in the Irish Sea or not? They care far more about trade for their constituents. I think the same will be true of the Americans eventually.
Yes I get all the don't hug your granny, overwhelm the NHS, etc but really look at the measures restricting freedom we have for what looks like a 0.1% infection rate.
All that is keeping Johnson in his job is the MPs don't want to change horses before Brexit is done, in my view.
Notably the cabinet briefed the Mail they were against the rule of six, letting Johnson and Hancock twist in the wind.
Listen to tory leaning phone ins and threads, anger is close to boiling point.
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
Agreement in principle, subject to approval by the National Diet in January. Which gives the ND a bit longer to think about it than the 48 hours they have had so far.
I wouldn't have thought they'd cause any trouble over it.
But what would someone called edmundintokyo know about that? Anyway, the point stands that an announcement made today was obviously oven ready, as it were, before this latest carry on started on Tuesday.
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
Agreement in principle, subject to approval by the National Diet in January. Which gives the ND a bit longer to think about it than the 48 hours they have had so far.
I wouldn't have thought they'd cause any trouble over it.
Yes, why would they, as they don't give a monkey's whether the border is in the Irish Sea or not? They care far more about trade for their constituents. I think the same will be true of the Americans eventually.
The Irish lobby votes and politicians pander to them.
But if we don't ever get a deal with the Americans we are no worse off since the EU hasn't got one either.
An excellent article indeed - it all sounds very exciting!
Even in today's revolting climate this article is a bit breathlessly overdone. You wouldn't notice from reading it that we have OMOV elections and a parliamentary democracy or that the Gramsci tactics have not mostly come from the centre right.
Would you do notice is that a good number of elites who have been very used to getting their way are having their noses put out of joint by actual people with actual opinions.
Gramsci was precisely the name that sprang to mind while reading it - the right has finally cottoned on to the concept of cultural hegemony, and its originators don't like to share!
"Chief among these fantasists are unelected advisors. Many criticisms can be made of our MPs, but some of the main instigators of instability in British politics since 2010 have had no electoral mandate at all - Steve Hilton, Matthew Elliott, Fiona Hill, Nick Timothy, and Cummings himself. "
Did this unelected advisor business only start in 2010? I can think of one from before then who could be called an instigator of instability - to the British Labour market, our relationship with the EU, and to the Middle East for starters
I think the point is, advisers were generally his masters' voice, rather than supposed visionaries. Campbell, for all his power, never pursued a course of action that wasn't sanctioned from the top (his own politics are arguably to the left of Blair). Other key advisers, were likewise, sellers of the message or pollsters, or traditional youngish policy wonks. Cummings is arguably the apogee of a process the Tories landed upon with Hilton (but then abandoned) where politicians were the salespeople for gurus, or philosopher kings who determine the politics and tactics of the government - who also happen to have been believers in the benefits of creative destruction and flouting past norms.
I'd say it was pretty stupid to expect anyone but the most partisan to swallow a line about 'unelected advisors' with 'no electoral mandate' with a list that starts at 2010, inferring it didnt happen before then. I reckon most people would namecheck Cummings and Campbell if asked to name some.
Explain how much they'll be able to steal once they can give out taxpayer's money as state aid to whoever they like, and tell each individual Tory MP what their cut will be.
Yes. This bill basically legalises corruption without Parliamentary or Judicial oversight. It's an absolutely shocking bill that the Commons should throw out at first reading. The constant references to the impact on Brexit and the peace process are hiding its true implications in plain sight.
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
Yes I get all the don't hug your granny, overwhelm the NHS, etc but really look at the measures restricting freedom we have for what looks like a 0.1% infection rate.
All that is keeping Johnson in his job is the MPs don't want to change horses before Brexit is done, in my view.
Notably the cabinet briefed the Mail they were against the rule of six, letting Johnson and Hancock twist in the wind.
Listen to tory leaning phone ins and threads, anger is close to boiling point.
As someone else pointed out there'll be some cross Tories, especially from the North East, hanging about Westminster until 7 or so on a Friday night. What time's the last train to Newcastle on a Friday night?
@Casino_Royale can I ask you a question please - notwithstanding the "international law" elements which I can understand being a concern on their own right . . . you seem very keen on the idea of compromising to get a deal, even if it means compromising on the LPF.
Would you be OK with the EU telling the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer that a tax cut that Parliament had passed in the Budget was unacceptable "state aid"? Is that in your view an acceptable price worth paying in order to get a deal, or does the idea of that disturb you?
It disturbs me but I don't think that qualifies as State Aid.
To be State Aid it has to be an advantage conferred on a particular organisation using state resources on a selective basis. So a general tax cut or wouldn't apply - it'd need to be a specific tax break to a company with enhanced capital allowances, for example.
We (as well as the EU) already sometimes do a bit of that in agriculture, R&D and energy in times of economic crisis so I don't think it's that controversial. It's a question of whether you're taking the piss or not (like cutting Rolls Royce corporation tax to zero and subsidising their exports for 5 years for example versus bailing them out with cash to keep them from going under in a time of crisis).
I really struggle to see how something sensible can't be negotiated on this with a sensible co-enforcement mechanism.
Thanks.
I agree what you say is reasonable. Unfortunately as it stands the EU does not and want a far wider scope.
I agree with your distinction between selective and non selective. The state should have no role in picking winners or losers, but setting a tax environment that is competitive and then having winners or losers arise from fair competition is reasonable. If only all parties could agree to that but we can't make them agree.
Explain how much they'll be able to steal once they can give out taxpayer's money as state aid to whoever they like, and tell each individual Tory MP what their cut will be.
Yes. This bill basically legalises corruption without Parliamentary or Judicial oversight. It's an absolutely shocking bill that the Commons should throw out at first reading. The constant references to the impact on Brexit and the peace process are hiding its true implications in plain sight.
Can you throw a bill out at first reading? I thought it was just a procedure to introduce the bill.
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
An excellent article indeed - it all sounds very exciting!
Even in today's revolting climate this article is a bit breathlessly overdone. You wouldn't notice from reading it that we have OMOV elections and a parliamentary democracy or that the Gramsci tactics have not mostly come from the centre right.
Would you do notice is that a good number of elites who have been very used to getting their way are having their noses put out of joint by actual people with actual opinions.
Gramsci was precisely the name that sprang to mind while reading it - the right has finally cottoned on to the concept of cultural hegemony, and its originators don't like to share!
"Chief among these fantasists are unelected advisors. Many criticisms can be made of our MPs, but some of the main instigators of instability in British politics since 2010 have had no electoral mandate at all - Steve Hilton, Matthew Elliott, Fiona Hill, Nick Timothy, and Cummings himself. "
Did this unelected advisor business only start in 2010? I can think of one from before then who could be called an instigator of instability - to the British Labour market, our relationship with the EU, and to the Middle East for starters
I think the point is, advisers were generally his masters' voice, rather than supposed visionaries. Campbell, for all his power, never pursued a course of action that wasn't sanctioned from the top (his own politics are arguably to the left of Blair). Other key advisers, were likewise, sellers of the message or pollsters, or traditional youngish policy wonks. Cummings is arguably the apogee of a process the Tories landed upon with Hilton (but then abandoned) where politicians were the salespeople for gurus, or philosopher kings who determine the politics and tactics of the government - who also happen to have been believers in the benefits of creative destruction and flouting past norms.
Yes, Campbell was messaging and party management only. No comparison with Cummings.
@Casino_Royale can I ask you a question please - notwithstanding the "international law" elements which I can understand being a concern on their own right . . . you seem very keen on the idea of compromising to get a deal, even if it means compromising on the LPF.
Would you be OK with the EU telling the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer that a tax cut that Parliament had passed in the Budget was unacceptable "state aid"? Is that in your view an acceptable price worth paying in order to get a deal, or does the idea of that disturb you?
It disturbs me but I don't think that qualifies as State Aid.
To be State Aid it has to be an advantage conferred on a particular organisation using state resources on a selective basis. So a general tax cut or wouldn't apply - it'd need to be a specific tax break to a company with enhanced capital allowances, for example.
We (as well as the EU) already sometimes do a bit of that in agriculture, R&D and energy in times of economic crisis so I don't think it's that controversial. It's a question of whether you're taking the piss or not (like cutting Rolls Royce corporation tax to zero and subsidising their exports for 5 years for example versus bailing them out with cash to keep them from going under in a time of crisis).
I really struggle to see how something sensible can't be negotiated on this with a sensible co-enforcement mechanism.
Quite, and frankly this sounds far more like somebody on the UK side misrepresenting/twisting something for domestic consumption. It's one thing to complain that the EU are seeking to tie the UK into the existing EU State Aid regime. It's absolutely nonsensical to argue that the EU are seeking to apply a definition of state aid that doesn't even apply at the moment! Not least because if they did then the UK could actually take EU countries to court, and win, for applying existing EU standards on the issue.
Explain how much they'll be able to steal once they can give out taxpayer's money as state aid to whoever they like, and tell each individual Tory MP what their cut will be.
Yes. This bill basically legalises corruption without Parliamentary or Judicial oversight. It's an absolutely shocking bill that the Commons should throw out at first reading. The constant references to the impact on Brexit and the peace process are hiding its true implications in plain sight.
Can you throw a bill out at first reading? I thought it was just a procedure to introduce the bill.
Technically i think yes. Although obviously normally the vote is a complete formality. I was however using a bit of creative licence.
Yes I get all the don't hug your granny, overwhelm the NHS, etc but really look at the measures restricting freedom we have for what looks like a 0.1% infection rate.
All that is keeping Johnson in his job is the MPs don't want to change horses before Brexit is done, in my view.
Notably the cabinet briefed the Mail they were against the rule of six, letting Johnson and Hancock twist in the wind.
Listen to tory leaning phone ins and threads, anger is close to boiling point.
As someone else pointed out there'll be some cross Tories, especially from the North East, hanging about Westminster until 7 or so on a Friday night. What time's the last train to Newcastle on a Friday night?
Yes I get all the don't hug your granny, overwhelm the NHS, etc but really look at the measures restricting freedom we have for what looks like a 0.1% infection rate.
What might be driving this - the notion that it's too noisy and confusing to keep chopping and changing the advice, so - with winter coming and a second wave thought almost inevitable - just get this "Rule of Six" and "Hands, Face, Space" stuff out there and understood as the core of the regime for the next few months.
Joe Biden is doing extraordinarily well with Boomers, of which there are a ton in Florida
Interesting analysis, well worth listening to.
Leantossup have a fantastic track record too. They have called in recent years the Canadian election, the US midterms and the UK General Election all pretty much spot on.
Joe Biden is doing extraordinarily well with Boomers, of which there are a ton in Florida
Interesting analysis, well worth listening to.
Leantossup have a fantastic track record too. They have called in recent years the Canadian election, the US midterms and the UK General Election all pretty much spot on.
This is excellent stuff and top-class ranting.
I’d be okay with a Marist based freakout if it was also accompanied by a call for Likely D Pennsylvania after their Biden +9 poll, but of course there was no such call because this isn’t an argument based in logic or math. This is an argument based in needless conservatism and a whole lot of people thinking they’re so much smarter than everybody else. “Look at me, I can see a poll with a Hispanic crosstab that is laughably good for Trump that still only has a tossup and overreact” isn’t a thing I expected most of Elections Twitter – and apparently Cook, because why not – to advertise on main, but apparently I’m not as smart as them. This isn’t about data analysis, this is about a whole lot of Democrats being scared because Rick Scott is now in the Senate and looking to not get hurt again.
Doesn't matter. The person who is being told what to do was elected PM. It's all on Boris. He could choose to ignore Dom if he wanted.
Are you sure about that?
100%.
You means as sure as Boris was about the Withdrawal Agreement?
Boris is PM. It is his fault. Whoever is whispering sweet nothings into his ear is immaterial.
He is the PM and in charge.
It is interesting how Johnson lurch to the right has pushed you into almost the mainstream
Not sure it's a lurch to the right so much as a lurch into the void.
Quite. its a a lurch into a sort of nether world.
Getting brexit done is the only thing keeping Johnson afloat right now.
When its done, the backlash from the party is going to be huge, in my view. Johnson might make it to December, but after that? toast.
Except you need a new face (Gove? Surely too strange. Sunak? Surely too green.) and a new direction. Thanks to the loyalty purges, the new direction will be difficult to discern. Gove, especially, will be Johnson with less brio and worse jokes.
You also need a odd combination of attitudes, ambitious enough to want the top job, but not so ambitious as to think "the next few years will be terrible; let someone else take the beatings."
Whatever his weaknesses, BoJo is good at Mafia management.
Yes I get all the don't hug your granny, overwhelm the NHS, etc but really look at the measures restricting freedom we have for what looks like a 0.1% infection rate.
What might be driving this - the notion that it's too noisy and confusing to keep chopping and changing the advice, so - with winter coming and a second wave thought almost inevitable - just get this "Rule of Six" and "Hands, Face, Space" stuff out there and understood as the core of the regime for the next few months.
It is a significant curtailment of liberty if it's been done "to keep things simple".
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
Analysis by the UK government still expects the net benefit of its Japan trade deal to amount to...drum roll....
0.07% of GDP
Lolz suddenly trade deals don't matter when we sign one.
It was a disaster we were losing our Japanese trade deals yesterday.
We had a trade deal with Japan via the EU. So to go from this to not having one at all would have been a major regression. But now we do have one, therefore we are flat as regards Japan. And given 'flat' is the most wildly optimistic of all possible Brexit economic outcomes this is, as you say, a cause for celebration.
Not yet. Japan's Parliament needs to ratify it. Usually, such things are a formality - but until local lobbyists fail to rise up in revolt, you never know that for certain.
Comments
Did this unelected advisor business only start in 2010? I can think of one from before then who could be called an instigator of instability - to the British Labour market, our relationship with the EU, and to the Middle East for starters
https://twitter.com/survation/status/1304367142662541312?s=21
https://twitter.com/survation/status/1304367144491266049?s=21
https://twitter.com/survation/status/1304367146265464832?s=21
But without the "Or sack me" bit.
Or giving the EU an ultimatum to compromise or we walk away next week.
Dip your hands in this pool of blood.
I grabbed this picture of Johnson when he was listening to Starmer's 3rd question at PMQs on Wednesday.
The polling in IA, MT and GA seems to have turned against them over the last month. The margins have narrowed in NC and ME, so it wouldn't surprise me if they were split.
It will make life very hard for Biden if he does win the Presidency.
Tories likely lose WAK, Moray and Dumfries.
BRS, Edinburgh West, Banff and DCT are tight Tory marginals (Yellow Tories in the case of Edinburgh West).
The only stone cold certain unionist hold is Edi South.
Keir on the tube.
As for being also supposedly the party of Laura Norder, he won't mention it.
Meeks, an hour ago:
"The damage to Britain’s reputation is already done. Who is going to sign a trade deal with such a faithless negotiating party, unless the terms are tighter than a cat’s bum?"
BBC, half an hour ago:
"UK signs first major post-Brexit trade deal with Japan"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54116606
"Prime Minister, you said that you'd be getting Brexit done so we look forward to this happening. We on this side of the house wish you all the best in getting a good trade deal with the EU."
"Ha. Yet again my right honourable friend, the leader of the Opposition, and the whole of his ragbag remoaner army take the side of Brussels against Britain. Well Nessun Dorma, I say, Nessun Dorma. And in particular the will of the British people that come hell or high water we must throw off the yoke of ... "
"Mmm. Now then, turning to the far more important matter of the impact of Covid 19 on our care homes. How does the Prime Minister intend to prevent a recurrence of the dreadful outcomes we saw earlier this year? Have lessons been learnt and if so which ones and how?"
"Ha. I will take no lessons on Covid from the party opposite. The party opposite who instead of Glutus Maximus are yet again are taking the side of Brussels against Britain. The party opposite who still, even now, refuse to accept that the clear will of the British people is that come hell or high water we must throw off the yoke of ..."
He is the PM and in charge.
Otherwise, what are they worth?
Johnson has junked every single conservative principle in the book in the last eight months.
What's left? not very much.
To be State Aid it has to be an advantage conferred on a particular organisation using state resources on a selective basis. So a general tax cut or wouldn't apply - it'd need to be a specific tax break to a company with enhanced capital allowances, for example.
We (as well as the EU) already sometimes do a bit of that in agriculture, R&D and energy in times of economic crisis so I don't think it's that controversial. It's a question of whether you're taking the piss or not (like cutting Rolls Royce corporation tax to zero and subsidising their exports for 5 years for example versus bailing them out with cash to keep them from going under in a time of crisis).
I really struggle to see how something sensible can't be negotiated on this with a sensible co-enforcement mechanism.
Notably the cabinet briefed the Mail they were against the rule of six, letting Johnson and Hancock twist in the wind.
Listen to tory leaning phone ins and threads, anger is close to boiling point.
But if we don't ever get a deal with the Americans we are no worse off since the EU hasn't got one either.
https://leantossup.ca/florida-is-not-a-tossup/
Joe Biden is doing extraordinarily well with Boomers, of which there are a ton in Florida
0.07% of GDP
What time's the last train to Newcastle on a Friday night?
I agree what you say is reasonable. Unfortunately as it stands the EU does not and want a far wider scope.
I agree with your distinction between selective and non selective. The state should have no role in picking winners or losers, but setting a tax environment that is competitive and then having winners or losers arise from fair competition is reasonable. If only all parties could agree to that but we can't make them agree.
Getting brexit done is the only thing keeping Johnson afloat right now.
When its done, the backlash from the party is going to be huge, in my view. Johnson might make it to December, but after that? toast.
It was a disaster we were losing our Japanese trade deals yesterday.
It is the Conservative Party that has moved so naturally I am looking for a party that most closely resembles my views.
Several years ago a Dutch colleague realised he had to vote in his home elections and asked, rhetorically, who he should vote for.
To which I answered the Party which advocated a smaller rather than larger state and individual responsibility. And it's how I vote.
If as you say that is the mainstream, it does leave those there as near enough orphans these days.
https://twitter.com/garvanwalshe/status/1304364969425764353?s=21
Leantossup have a fantastic track record too. They have called in recent years the Canadian election, the US midterms and the UK General Election all pretty much spot on.
NEW THREAD
You also need a odd combination of attitudes, ambitious enough to want the top job, but not so ambitious as to think "the next few years will be terrible; let someone else take the beatings."
Whatever his weaknesses, BoJo is good at Mafia management.