On topic: There's much to commend in this article, but I don't agree with a fairly central theme that Labour should be fighting on Johnson's home turf. He is good at sweeping rhetoric, and absolutely fucking terrible at detail. For me, killing this Tory administration ought to be a matter of death by a thousand cuts. And a good QC knows how to use a scalpel as well as a club. This is not a strategy that would work in many circumstances. There needs to be time (and there is), there needs to a government that is making mistakes so the cuts don't look like pedantry (there is). Further, there is a compelling rationale for not blundering in and making themselves hostages to fortune so early on. The government might, you know, actually get some things right. And any sweeping attacks you make which are then proven wrong become ammo to be fired back at you at a later date.
Another important point is that since the pandemic struck, politics has largely moved out of the streets and back indoors. Thank goodness for that, too. It's been such a welcome break to not have gangs of idiots harassing MPs on the streets. Johnson has a foot in that old world, but Starmer feels clean. There's a real hope that the cold rain of coronavirus is waking the country up from the fevered rampage it's been on, and that someone who doesn't look at all like a populist will attract voters. When Theresa May tried to ride the populist wave in 2017, it was a stiff and awkward performance. I think that wave has broken, so there's absolutely no reason for Starmer to repeat May's mistake. I have never voted Labour, but I'm impressed with Starmer so far. He's not making any bad mistakes, which is a low bar but a necessary one. When the policy ideas start to flow, I'll be ready to listen to Labour in a way I haven't been for the whole of my adult life so far. If a polling company approached me today and asked whom I would vote for, it wouldn't be Labour. But I was never the kind of person who would just suddenly drop everything and say yeah, red for me next time. If I am at all representative of a body of people in this country, then other people will be the same, dropping their instinctive opposition to Labour and saying ok, in your own time, let's hear what you've got to say.
A thousand cuts is good but there has to be some theme to it. I don’t think Starmer should aim to be like Johnson. But he needs to be a little less cautious in his attacks or he needs to find someone else in his team to do this. A bit of contemptuous well-aimed fury would not go amiss now and again.
As several have noted, you make a good point about the importance of the shadow Chancellor partnership. An intelligent bruiser like Balls would be ideal.
Good idea. Get Balls back into parliament as Starmer's Chancellor and you've got enough slogans to take you to the next election and beyond.. Eat your heart out Cummings!
Poland's nationalist President Duda tests positive for Covid as Polish women protest over the hardline new abortion laws from Poland's government which ban abortion except for in the case of rape or incest or health and are now amongst the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe or the developed world.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Its a negotiation. They know we want this part of the deal more than they do. They will want something for it. Not spite, just how countries negotiate with each other.
Yes, I think that's right. It's a negotiating stick.
But that is very different for spite. We asked to negotiate our deals with them, not the other way around. Of course they should leverage their advantages, as we should ours. It is predictable, rational behaviour not emotionally driven revenge.
Non Labour voters don't normally go round with 'never kissed a socialist' shirts on but a good proportion of their potential voters won't vote for a party which retains its socialist membership and MPs and won't vote for a party which still has an anti Semitic element in it. This is the exact mirror of the non Tory voters who won't vote for a party with JR-M, Mark Francois or Steve Baker in it and believe (which I don't) that the Tories sympathise with racists and fascists.
The Blair/Brown years in which it seemed Labour had changed into a clearly centrist party ended with Iraq and the banking meltdown and was followed by a return to hard socialism.
So Labour still has an immense amount to prove. All references to to faults of others (all justified) are useless whataboutery unless translated into belief, votes, centrists joining and running the party, properly marginalising the grievance tendency, supporting success and opportunity, understanding white van man, comprehending that if Irish, Scots and Welsh nationalisms are acceptable political forces so is the English version (they will find that hard).
But above all the issue is calibre. Cyclefree refers to the old alliances of opposition leader and shadow chancellor. Shadow Chancellor Who?
I'm particularly interested in the concept of "calibre" here. How precisely do normal people make judgements about the calibre of a politician?
Very good question. It certainly happens; the process is well beyond me. A combination of a behavioural psychologist and a metaphysician might like to have a go.
with another 7 months till the May elections (if they happen) I think Labour are probably right to sit tight and let BJ keep coiling his own rope....once the transition period ends ( 10 weeks) 2021 will probably be the time to turn the heat up.
I would not be surprised if the scheduled 2020 elections go ahead in some form in 2021, while the scheduled 2021 elections are pushed back to 2022, some of them anyway.
Its a monster election otherwise, potentially under all manner of restrictions.
I feel like cutting through is like a dam bursting. It builds up for ages and then hits hard. I couldn't believe how long May remained in front despite having totally lost control.
We've seen two chunks of collapse so far. One was after the non-story of Dom in Durham. (Never forget, that wasn't a story.) That lost the Conservatives their crisis bounce. That loss wasn't inevitable; look at New Zealand. After that, the Conservative lead settled at about 5 points. The other was after the exams fiascos. That saw the lead settle about 1 point. Both times, the collapse was followed by a new stasis
Something is making the Conservative bedrock vote sticky. My hunch is it's the "Brexit is in peril" vote, but we're about to see.
But rapid partial collapse followed by periods of apparent stability is how landslides begin...
For those wanting a more exciting US election race Biden’s comments about energy at the last debate have thrown a curveball into proceedings .
Although they might help him with progressives and younger voters he’s now on a damage limitation exercise in Pennsylvania and Texas in particular.
It could also hurt him in some other states . He’s lucky that so many have already voted but I think Pennsylvania is now more of a toss up , Texas which was a long shot is I think now definitely in the Trump column.
You don’t want to be doing a walkback exercise in the last week of the campaign .
Although polls show Americans by a clear margin understand the need to be moving to more renewables I think Biden’s gaffe was one of the few missteps of his campaign .
Though interestingly the US produced more of its energy from renewable sources than from coal for the first time in over 130 years in 2019 anyway
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Their system is limited to the EEA. There's nothing spiteful about continuing to enforce their existing rules, however much it offends your sense of entitlement.
Utter nonsense. The system can easily be extended to cover other nations, as ours has been.
And Switzerland isn't in the EEA either - so you're wrong about that too.
There are lots of other countries that the EU or the UK system could be theoretically extended to too, do you consider all of those acts of spitefuless?
Still Brexit, I think, although that's as much a point of view as a policy act. Anyone who values decency, competence and the truth has abandoned the Conservative Party. We're at a 40% bedrock, who won't shift their views for any of those things.
Agree with this. Brexit has proved the ultimate wedge issue and has played big time for the Tories and against Labour. We now have in the blue corner a "base" of 40% of voters who for all their differences are united by a sense of X - I won't define what X is since I don't wish to offend anybody this morning - and it will take a rocket to shift them.
Perhaps Labour's best bet is therefore to (almost) forget these 40% and start growing an equal and opposite base. This means they should always seek to polarize rather than unite or (worse) triangulate. Argue for activist government. BIG focus on green. More identity politics. Push not play down socially progressive values. Given they face an English equivalent of the Trump Republicans, assemble a voting coalition similar to the Dems, the young, ethnic minorites, educated metropolitans, urban liberals, etc. Squeeze out the Lib Dems, force all LD voters to choose which side they're on.
I think this for better or worse might be where we're heading and "Labour" - or whatever we want to call ourselves - can do well in such a landscape.
If people want to see or understand why Labour have not "broken through" they need do no more than read @Cyclefree 's piece.
The inbuilt and unwarranted assumptions are just alien to the majority of this country. Remainer angst is redolent in every sentence. How could the people have been so stupid as to vote for Brexit and then, when the remainer Parliament lied and lied, kicked them out on their arses giving Boris an 80 strong majority? How deluded and stupid people are. How could anyone believe that anyone who thought Brexit was a good idea was right about anything, ever? Or competent? How can they not see this (gnashing of teeth).
The majority of us (as established by a referendum and an election) really don't see it that way. We see a government struggling with a pandemic that has caused chaos around the world, who is trying to negotiate with the EU with a significant chunk of its own country cheering the EU on, tweeting every contemptuous aside with glee. It pisses us off. And it makes it us overlook the many, many flaws of this government.
Just a thought.
Eh? There is no reference to Brexit at all in the piece. Quite why you need to replay your Brexit angst is a mystery.
And my very first reason says pretty much what you have - namely that people are giving the government the benefit of the doubt because we need it to succeed, regardless of whether we support it or not. That is my view and it is incidentally my view on Brexit - namely that I want a deal with the EU and for Brexit not to be a failure because if it is it is me and mine who suffer if it is a failure.
People are not really rushing to Labour because they don’t see any need to and because, as @Casino_Royale has said, many of them probably feel that it does not share their values.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Its a negotiation. They know we want this part of the deal more than they do. They will want something for it. Not spite, just how countries negotiate with each other.
Yes, I think that's right. It's a negotiating stick.
But that is very different for spite. We asked to negotiate our deals with them, not the other way around. Of course they should leverage their advantages, as we should ours. It is predictable, rational behaviour not emotionally driven revenge.
Nah, there's definitely a bit of spite in their as well. This is a highly emotionally charged negotiation. That factors into what positions are taken and how hard they are leveraged.
Talk to anyone who works for any EU institution about Brexit and see what they say (disclosure: I have).
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
I'm a tough negotiator, playing my cards effectively. You're being spiteful.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
The Brexit Show - featuring the World's worst winners ever!
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Their system is limited to the EEA. There's nothing spiteful about continuing to enforce their existing rules, however much it offends your sense of entitlement.
No it isn't. I literally just went through Naples airport and it had US, Australia and NZ flags (among others) on the e-gates at arrivals. None of those countries have any formal trade deal with the EU and aren't in the EEA/EFTA.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
That's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it?
I'm a tough negotiator, playing my cards effectively. You're being spiteful.
It works perfectly well if you're an UTOA Remainer:
The EU is a tough negotiator, playing its cards effectively. The UK is a spiteful child.
Very interesting header, thanks @Cyclefree. I think more should be made of the situation with Dodds. I believe there are mutterings within the party over her lack of impact. She's only been in post a few months but it's a cruel game politics. She has been promoted rapidly under Starmer and doesn't appear to have found her feet yet.
Generally in opposition, only the leader and the shadow chancellor make any kind of impact on the general public.
If I were Starmer I would replace Dodds with Ed Miliband or Yvette Cooper, she has been over promoted in my view
Non Labour voters don't normally go round with 'never kissed a socialist' shirts on but a good proportion of their potential voters won't vote for a party which retains its socialist membership and MPs and won't vote for a party which still has an anti Semitic element in it. This is the exact mirror of the non Tory voters who won't vote for a party with JR-M, Mark Francois or Steve Baker in it and believe (which I don't) that the Tories sympathise with racists and fascists.
The Blair/Brown years in which it seemed Labour had changed into a clearly centrist party ended with Iraq and the banking meltdown and was followed by a return to hard socialism.
So Labour still has an immense amount to prove. All references to to faults of others (all justified) are useless whataboutery unless translated into belief, votes, centrists joining and running the party, properly marginalising the grievance tendency, supporting success and opportunity, understanding white van man, comprehending that if Irish, Scots and Welsh nationalisms are acceptable political forces so is the English version (they will find that hard).
But above all the issue is calibre. Cyclefree refers to the old alliances of opposition leader and shadow chancellor. Shadow Chancellor Who?
I'm particularly interested in the concept of "calibre" here. How precisely do normal people make judgements about the calibre of a politician?
Very good question. It certainly happens; the process is well beyond me. A combination of a behavioural psychologist and a metaphysician might like to have a go.
As a completely unqualified amateur I would say its a mix of communication, self confidence, track record, respect from media and colleagues in that order. A high calibre politician probably scores well on at least 3 of those 4, its rare to find someone who does well on all 4, Ken Clarke, Paddy Ashdown would be two examples.
If people want to see or understand why Labour have not "broken through" they need do no more than read @Cyclefree 's piece.
The inbuilt and unwarranted assumptions are just alien to the majority of this country. Remainer angst is redolent in every sentence. How could the people have been so stupid as to vote for Brexit and then, when the remainer Parliament lied and lied, kicked them out on their arses giving Boris an 80 strong majority? How deluded and stupid people are. How could anyone believe that anyone who thought Brexit was a good idea was right about anything, ever? Or competent? How can they not see this (gnashing of teeth).
The majority of us (as established by a referendum and an election) really don't see it that way. We see a government struggling with a pandemic that has caused chaos around the world, who is trying to negotiate with the EU with a significant chunk of its own country cheering the EU on, tweeting every contemptuous aside with glee. It pisses us off. And it makes it us overlook the many, many flaws of this government.
Just a thought.
Eh? There is no reference to Brexit at all in the piece. Quite why you need to replay your Brexit angst is a mystery.
And my very first reason says pretty much what you have - namely that people are giving the government the benefit of the doubt because we need it to succeed, regardless of whether we support it or not. That is my view and it is incidentally my view on Brexit - namely that I want a deal with the EU and for Brexit not to be a failure because if it is it is me and mine who suffer if it is a failure.
People are not really rushing to Labour because they don’t see any need to and because, as @Casino_Royale has said, many of them probably feel that it does not share their values.
Come on @Cyclefree , are you really saying that your contempt for this government isn't based on this fundamental difference of view? One of the values Labour doesn't share is Brexit. SKS tries hard not to talk about it but people remember the role he played in the remainer Parliament. He is trying hard to move on from it and, maybe, after January he will be able to but right now its giving Boris the same bedrock of support that Sturgeon gets from Independence supporters who back her no matter how ridiculous it gets.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Its a negotiation. They know we want this part of the deal more than they do. They will want something for it. Not spite, just how countries negotiate with each other.
Yes, I think that's right. It's a negotiating stick.
But that is very different for spite. We asked to negotiate our deals with them, not the other way around. Of course they should leverage their advantages, as we should ours. It is predictable, rational behaviour not emotionally driven revenge.
Nah, there's definitely a bit of spite in their as well. This is a highly emotionally charged negotiation. That factors into what positions are taken and how hard they are leveraged.
Talk to anyone who works for any EU institution about Brexit and see what they say (disclosure: I have).
As I said yesterday, this is one of those "consequences" for leaving that doesn't apply to countries who were never in it.
Again, it's our own fault. From day 1 after the referendum we should have been treating the EU as an informal enemy and working in that basis. Our failure to do so and to assume that they were still a formal ally has meant we've always been playing catch up. Even now we're still doing it. Had we got the initial stance right then we'd have been prepared for all of these "consequences for leaving" a lot better than now.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
The Brexit Show - featuring the World's worst winners ever!
Err.. Featuring the world's worst losers, surely?
I am pointing out why some of those losers are hated - because most British citizens can easily spot the sort of other British citizen who like to cheerfully cheer on an overseas bloc trying to stick it to us all.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
It smacks much more of them deriving the satisfaction of feeling vindicated. The same kind of satisfaction I detect from hardcore Leavers at any perceived intransigence or unreasonableness from the EU.
And so we're still where we were, with you lot shouting "see, we told you they were bad eggs!" and them shouting "see, we told you were shooting us in the foot!", and, I hope, an increasing number of us in the middle wishing you'd all calm the fuck down.
For those wanting a more exciting US election race Biden’s comments about energy at the last debate have thrown a curveball into proceedings .
Although they might help him with progressives and younger voters he’s now on a damage limitation exercise in Pennsylvania and Texas in particular.
It could also hurt him in some other states . He’s lucky that so many have already voted but I think Pennsylvania is now more of a toss up , Texas which was a long shot is I think now definitely in the Trump column.
You don’t want to be doing a walkback exercise in the last week of the campaign .
Although polls show Americans by a clear margin understand the need to be moving to more renewables I think Biden’s gaffe was one of the few missteps of his campaign .
Though interestingly the US produced more of its energy from renewable sources than from coal for the first time in over 130 years in 2019 anyway
Honestly I don't think much will have changed, most oil/coal workers are in Trump's corner anyway and even in the US the general population knows the future is less fossil fuel based.
It's a republican battle very for sure but like almost anything that's happened this election I doubt much will change.
We will see early next week what the debate did if anything. Though roughly around now the 2016 narrowing started to be seen, even in state polls, so Trump will need the same to be occuring soon, the current narrowing seen is small and has to go further than 2016.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Its a negotiation. They know we want this part of the deal more than they do. They will want something for it. Not spite, just how countries negotiate with each other.
Yes, I think that's right. It's a negotiating stick.
But that is very different for spite. We asked to negotiate our deals with them, not the other way around. Of course they should leverage their advantages, as we should ours. It is predictable, rational behaviour not emotionally driven revenge.
Nah, there's definitely a bit of spite in their as well. This is a highly emotionally charged negotiation. That factors into what positions are taken and how hard they are leveraged.
Talk to anyone who works for any EU institution about Brexit and see what they say (disclosure: I have).
I don't necessarily disagree, but your argument on this is unbalanced.
Have you not noticed the visceral hatred and spite displayed by many on the Brexit side in the UK for anything and anybody that has the EU label attached to it?
Yes, I think the East/West Berlin comparison with Wales is slightly offensive.
I'd also note that many people thought Dominic Cummings should be locked up for ever for travelling up and down the country in violation of travel restrictions. Many of those same people now seem to take the view that the Welsh government imposing travel restrictions is tantamount to fascism.
The comparison with Berlin is hyperbolic.
But if -- as is widely reported in the Welsh media & on the BBC -- Drakeford has asked English police to stop Welsh people leaving Wales, to turn them back and to report them to the home police force, then that is a major, major blunder.
The optics are absolutely terrible. It would be bad enough if he asked the Welsh police to do it, but to ask the English police, once they have left Wales, is a really monumental error .
And anyone who gets one of these fines is not going to pay it, but challenge it. It seems pretty unclear to me whether Drakeford actually has this authority.
Is the header completely wrong? It begs the question but is it begging the right question?
Labour and Starmer have made enormous progress but not with the electorate.
Each Wednesday, almost without fail, SKS skewers Boris on some point or other. The public might not notice but ask any journalist, any pundit, and most crucially any Conservative MP if the Prime Minister is up to the job. Boris himself must know too.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Its a negotiation. They know we want this part of the deal more than they do. They will want something for it. Not spite, just how countries negotiate with each other.
Yes, I think that's right. It's a negotiating stick.
But that is very different for spite. We asked to negotiate our deals with them, not the other way around. Of course they should leverage their advantages, as we should ours. It is predictable, rational behaviour not emotionally driven revenge.
Nah, there's definitely a bit of spite in their as well. This is a highly emotionally charged negotiation. That factors into what positions are taken and how hard they are leveraged.
Talk to anyone who works for any EU institution about Brexit and see what they say (disclosure: I have).
As I said yesterday, this is one of those "consequences" for leaving that doesn't apply to countries who were never in it.
Again, it's our own fault. From day 1 after the referendum we should have been treating the EU as an informal enemy and working in that basis. Our failure to do so and to assume that they were still a formal ally has meant we've always been playing catch up. Even now we're still doing it. Had we got the initial stance right then we'd have been prepared for all of these "consequences for leaving" a lot better than now.
I agree with the first bit, and I might put the second slightly differently: I wouldn't treat them as an informal enemy, but I think it was naïve to expect friendly behaviour toward us as an ex-member state.
I agree we never prepared for all the consequences either, in order to maximise our negotiating leverage, and that was a mistake too.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Its a negotiation. They know we want this part of the deal more than they do. They will want something for it. Not spite, just how countries negotiate with each other.
Yes, I think that's right. It's a negotiating stick.
But that is very different for spite. We asked to negotiate our deals with them, not the other way around. Of course they should leverage their advantages, as we should ours. It is predictable, rational behaviour not emotionally driven revenge.
Nah, there's definitely a bit of spite in their as well. This is a highly emotionally charged negotiation. That factors into what positions are taken and how hard they are leveraged.
Talk to anyone who works for any EU institution about Brexit and see what they say (disclosure: I have).
I don't necessarily disagree, but your argument on this is unbalanced.
Have you not noticed the visceral hatred and spite displayed by many on the Brexit side in the UK for anything and anybody that has the EU label attached to it?
That does not count. The righteous can commit no wrong
For those wanting a more exciting US election race Biden’s comments about energy at the last debate have thrown a curveball into proceedings .
Although they might help him with progressives and younger voters he’s now on a damage limitation exercise in Pennsylvania and Texas in particular.
It could also hurt him in some other states . He’s lucky that so many have already voted but I think Pennsylvania is now more of a toss up , Texas which was a long shot is I think now definitely in the Trump column.
You don’t want to be doing a walkback exercise in the last week of the campaign .
Although polls show Americans by a clear margin understand the need to be moving to more renewables I think Biden’s gaffe was one of the few missteps of his campaign .
Though interestingly the US produced more of its energy from renewable sources than from coal for the first time in over 130 years in 2019 anyway
Interesting thanks for the link . A transition away from oil isn’t really an outlandish position but Biden so far had been able to avoid a gaffe there .In terms of fracking it won’t hurt him in places like NC or Florida but I’d now take off a couple of points from his lead in Pennsylvania . Texas is now out of reach , it was a long shot to begin with . The oil issue could also hurt him to a lesser degree in places like Arizona and NM . The latter though in terms of polling had big leads so he’s likely fine there but there’s now an element to throw into the mix that wasn’t there a few days ago .
I feel like cutting through is like a dam bursting. It builds up for ages and then hits hard. I couldn't believe how long May remained in front despite having totally lost control.
We've seen two chunks of collapse so far. One was after the non-story of Dom in Durham. (Never forget, that wasn't a story.) That lost the Conservatives their crisis bounce. That loss wasn't inevitable; look at New Zealand. After that, the Conservative lead settled at about 5 points. The other was after the exams fiascos. That saw the lead settle about 1 point. Both times, the collapse was followed by a new stasis
Something is making the Conservative bedrock vote sticky. My hunch is it's the "Brexit is in peril" vote, but we're about to see.
But rapid partial collapse followed by periods of apparent stability is how landslides begin...
To the bulk of the electorate brexit is done, they dont care what comes out of the negotiations they want the government to focus on the pandemic. They don’t follow the detail, don’t believe there will be lorry queues And food and medicine shortages, it’s all going to be fine boris says so. Will they notice the downsides if there are any, who knows but there will be some who wonder why Mr Patel is still here and we’re not putting Romanian Gypsies in camps.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
Win people over to what? It is a done deal. We have Brexited. There is no case to make for staying in because we cannot.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
The Brexit Show - featuring the World's worst winners ever!
Err.. Featuring the world's worst losers, surely?
I am pointing out why some of those losers are hated - because most British citizens can easily spot the sort of other British citizen who like to cheerfully cheer on an overseas bloc trying to stick it to us all.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
So acting reasonably now involves not commenting on Brexit? It is the biggest change to our trading arrangements in our lifetime and it is unreasonable for half the country to state their view until after its happened?
And if we did stay silent, we would then get told, you should have spoken up at the time, its too late to moan now.
Disliking remainers is a necessary part of this govts Brexit, its more to do with the leave media than remainers actions.
Still Brexit, I think, although that's as much a point of view as a policy act. Anyone who values decency, competence and the truth has abandoned the Conservative Party. We're at a 40% bedrock, who won't shift their views for any of those things.
Agree with this. Brexit has proved the ultimate wedge issue and has played big time for the Tories and against Labour. We now have in the blue corner a "base" of 40% of voters who for all their differences are united by a sense of X - I won't define what X is since I don't wish to offend anybody this morning - and it will take a rocket to shift them.
Perhaps Labour's best bet is therefore to (almost) forget these 40% and start growing an equal and opposite base. This means they should always seek to polarize rather than unite or (worse) triangulate. Argue for activist government. BIG focus on green. More identity politics. Push not play down socially progressive values. Given they face an English equivalent of the Trump Republicans, assemble a voting coalition similar to the Dems, the young, ethnic minorites, educated metropolitans, urban liberals, etc. Squeeze out the Lib Dems, force all LD voters to choose which side they're on.
I think this for better or worse might be where we're heading and "Labour" - or whatever we want to call ourselves - can do well in such a landscape.
You’ll never squeeze out the lib dems by forcing them to choose between two corrupt parties. They will rebuild starting in May.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Its a negotiation. They know we want this part of the deal more than they do. They will want something for it. Not spite, just how countries negotiate with each other.
Yes, I think that's right. It's a negotiating stick.
But that is very different for spite. We asked to negotiate our deals with them, not the other way around. Of course they should leverage their advantages, as we should ours. It is predictable, rational behaviour not emotionally driven revenge.
Nah, there's definitely a bit of spite in their as well. This is a highly emotionally charged negotiation. That factors into what positions are taken and how hard they are leveraged.
Talk to anyone who works for any EU institution about Brexit and see what they say (disclosure: I have).
I don't necessarily disagree, but your argument on this is unbalanced.
Have you not noticed the visceral hatred and spite displayed by many on the Brexit side in the UK for anything and anybody that has the EU label attached to it?
Yes, and I'm going to write an article about it - some day.
However, this is exactly how many Britons felt before Brexit and, crucially, after the Lisbon Treaty in particular was rammed through without a vote. The ratcheting effect of the Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, the EU constitution and Lisbon treaties through the 90s and 00s means there was zero trust or confidence in the EU by the time the referendum came around - many Britons felt it was their last and only chance to get out before it was too late. Now or never.
Remainers are now experiencing the same thing in reverse as the boot is on the other foot, and the Leavers in charge go ultra-hard with little concern for how they feel about it.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
It smacks much more of them deriving the satisfaction of feeling vindicated. The same kind of satisfaction I detect from hardcore Leavers at any perceived intransigence or unreasonableness from the EU.
And so we're still where we were, with you lot shouting "see, we told you they were bad eggs!" and them shouting "see, we told you were shooting us in the foot!", and, I hope, an increasing number of us in the middle wishing you'd all calm the fuck down.
You reckon you're in the middle?
You sure don't act like it - as your tiny track record of posts show.
On topic: There's much to commend in this article, but I don't agree with a fairly central theme that Labour should be fighting on Johnson's home turf. He is good at sweeping rhetoric, and absolutely fucking terrible at detail. For me, killing this Tory administration ought to be a matter of death by a thousand cuts. And a good QC knows how to use a scalpel as well as a club. This is not a strategy that would work in many circumstances. There needs to be time (and there is), there needs to a government that is making mistakes so the cuts don't look like pedantry (there is). Further, there is a compelling rationale for not blundering in and making themselves hostages to fortune so early on. The government might, you know, actually get some things right. And any sweeping attacks you make which are then proven wrong become ammo to be fired back at you at a later date.
Another important point is that since the pandemic struck, politics has largely moved out of the streets and back indoors. Thank goodness for that, too. It's been such a welcome break to not have gangs of idiots harassing MPs on the streets. Johnson has a foot in that old world, but Starmer feels clean. There's a real hope that the cold rain of coronavirus is waking the country up from the fevered rampage it's been on, and that someone who doesn't look at all like a populist will attract voters. When Theresa May tried to ride the populist wave in 2017, it was a stiff and awkward performance. I think that wave has broken, so there's absolutely no reason for Starmer to repeat May's mistake. I have never voted Labour, but I'm impressed with Starmer so far. He's not making any bad mistakes, which is a low bar but a necessary one. When the policy ideas start to flow, I'll be ready to listen to Labour in a way I haven't been for the whole of my adult life so far. If a polling company approached me today and asked whom I would vote for, it wouldn't be Labour. But I was never the kind of person who would just suddenly drop everything and say yeah, red for me next time. If I am at all representative of a body of people in this country, then other people will be the same, dropping their instinctive opposition to Labour and saying ok, in your own time, let's hear what you've got to say.
Personally - and it may surprise people to hear me say this - I think the skills even of top QC’s - don’t necessarily translate very well to politics. They have their place but can be a bit overrated. Lawyers - even good ones - aren’t necessarily great communicators outside their natural environment.
Though some are brilliant at it 😏.
Hi Cyclefree
You would know more about this than me, so I may be completely wrong. If so please tell me.
The job of a lawyer is to argue the facts and the law, generally based on information supplied by somebody else - a client, a solicitor, a junior counsel - to a small group of people face to face who have to pay attention. That is to say, know what they need to say and say it. Imagination is not needed or indeed helpful, as it might lead to them going off script.
Meanwhile, a politician needs to think up what to say, and then sell it to a very large disparate group of people who don’t have to listen if they don’t want to.
Would it therefore be fair to say that lawyers do not always have the qualities required to be leaders, rather than just advocates?
I appreciate many lawyers had vivid imaginations - Tony Blair’s fantasies about WMD spring to mind - but apart from him are Thatcher and Attlee the only barristers at law to be PM since 1922? Although again they were two very successful PMs.
A big topic this. It depends on what type of lawyer you are talking about. Criminal lawyers have to have empathetic skills because of the nature of the work and have to be able to weave a story to jurors who do not have to listen.
Civil lawyers are seeking to persuade a different sort of audience. One of the most cutting remarks a judge can make to a civil lawyer is that his speech is a “jury speech” ie stronger on emotions than legal argument.
Many lawyers are very articulate and persuasive and some are actors manque. And being able to persuade, to tell a story, to get people onside and with you is a key part of being a good lawyer and of being a leader. But lawyers’ skills tend to be used in an arena where the boundaries and rules are clear and understood (a courtroom etc) and outside that those skills don’t necessarily translate well. So they can be great in Parliament but not necessarily great outside it.
More is needed to be an effective leader I think. Managing people, for instance. Plus sometimes other attributes which come with being a good lawyer - caution, care with words, calmness and rationality- may hold them back. Politics can be colourful and vivid and brutal and emotional.
Blair didn’t practise much as a lawyer but was an effective politician. Hilary Clinton was a good lawyer but bloody useless as a politician. John Smith was pretty good. Thatcher I think learnt a great deal of her communication skills from her lay preaching when younger rather than her work as a tax barrister.
Hard to generalise but hope this gives you a bit of an answer. I’m sure other legal bods on here will have a view.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Their system is limited to the EEA. There's nothing spiteful about continuing to enforce their existing rules, however much it offends your sense of entitlement.
No it isn't. I literally just went through Naples airport and it had US, Australia and NZ flags (among others) on the e-gates at arrivals. None of those countries have any formal trade deal with the EU and aren't in the EEA/EFTA.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Their system is limited to the EEA. There's nothing spiteful about continuing to enforce their existing rules, however much it offends your sense of entitlement.
Utter nonsense. The system can easily be extended to cover other nations, as ours has been.
And Switzerland isn't in the EEA either - so you're wrong about that too.
There are lots of other countries that the EU or the UK system could be theoretically extended to too, do you consider all of those acts of spitefuless?
Yes, I think the East/West Berlin comparison with Wales is slightly offensive.
I'd also note that many people thought Dominic Cummings should be locked up for ever for travelling up and down the country in violation of travel restrictions. Many of those same people now seem to take the view that the Welsh government imposing travel restrictions is tantamount to fascism.
The comparison with Berlin is hyperbolic.
But if -- as is widely reported in the Welsh media & on the BBC -- Drakeford has asked English police to stop Welsh people leaving Wales, to turn them back and to report them to the home police force, then that is a major, major blunder.
The optics are absolutely terrible. It would be bad enough if he asked the Welsh police to do it, but to ask the English police, once they have left Wales, is a really monumental error .
And anyone who gets one of these fines is not going to pay it, but challenge it. It seems pretty unclear to me whether Drakeford actually has this authority.
If Drakeford's policy does turn out to be a disaster could we see the Conservatives beating Labour in Wales for the first time in a national election for over 100 years next year?
It is not out of the question, in April a Yougov Welsh Assembly poll had it Con 38% Lab 32% Plaid 19% on the constituency vote and Con 37% Lab 29% and Plaid 18% on the regional vote
District polling is supporting a strong shift to Biden state wise In 2016 when the state polls showed Clinton leading, the district polling was showing a different picture with Trump winning. Seems the polling as is so localised they picked up the education gap that national and state polling missed.
I do, but it's missing a couple of the district level polls that came out today - which, by the way, paint the same picture.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Their system is limited to the EEA. There's nothing spiteful about continuing to enforce their existing rules, however much it offends your sense of entitlement.
Utter nonsense. The system can easily be extended to cover other nations, as ours has been.
And Switzerland isn't in the EEA either - so you're wrong about that too.
There are lots of other countries that the EU or the UK system could be theoretically extended to too, do you consider all of those acts of spitefuless?
God, that's a pathetic attempt at whataboutism.
And I had you down as an intelligent poster.
No, it's the entire point. You think that you're entitled to special privileges that the rest of the world isn't. You're not.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
Win people over to what? It is a done deal. We have Brexited. There is no case to make for staying in because we cannot.
You won. Deal with it.
Win people over to re-joining the EU in the long-term, which we know is the play.
There's nothing for me to get over. I'm giving you free advice on how to succeed in your long-term objective.
Remember: the EU won't take us back unless there's a national consensus, not a 50:50 split, so all this attitude does is perpetuate a bitter and divided country.
Many lawyers are very articulate and persuasive and some are actors manque. And being able to persuade, to tell a story, to get people onside and with you is a key part of being a good lawyer and of being a leader. But lawyers’ skills tend to be used in an arena where the boundaries and rules are clear and understood (a courtroom etc) and outside that those skills don’t necessarily translate well. So they can be great in Parliament but not necessarily great outside it.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
The Brexit Show - featuring the World's worst winners ever!
Err.. Featuring the world's worst losers, surely?
I am pointing out why some of those losers are hated - because most British citizens can easily spot the sort of other British citizen who like to cheerfully cheer on an overseas bloc trying to stick it to us all.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
So acting reasonably now involves not commenting on Brexit? It is the biggest change to our trading arrangements in our lifetime and it is unreasonable for half the country to state their view until after its happened?
And if we did stay silent, we would then get told, you should have spoken up at the time, its too late to moan now.
Disliking remainers is a necessary part of this govts Brexit, its more to do with the leave media than remainers actions.
No, after the last 4 years of melodrama I really just find you lot insufferable.
God, it truly is PATHETIC how the same Remoaner posters are going through this thread 'liking' every crap argument put by fellow Remoaners, regardless of how shite they are (and almost are of them are).
Incels, losers and rejects who need to get a life.
This site truly has gone down the toilet.
I have better things to do with my day. So long, saddos.
God, it truly is PATHETIC how the same Remoaner posters are going through this thread 'liking' every crap argument put by fellow Remoaners, regardless of how shite they are (and almost are of them are).
Incels, losers and rejects who need to get a life.
This site truly has gone down the toilet.
I have better things to do with my day. So long, saddos.
Well I hope you read this, because I was on your side of this argument until you acted like a child right now. Your obsession with the little used like function, and making deeply personal insults when, to my mind, you were making a persuasive point, is your own hangup, not others.
Still Brexit, I think, although that's as much a point of view as a policy act. Anyone who values decency, competence and the truth has abandoned the Conservative Party. We're at a 40% bedrock, who won't shift their views for any of those things.
Agree with this. Brexit has proved the ultimate wedge issue and has played big time for the Tories and against Labour. We now have in the blue corner a "base" of 40% of voters who for all their differences are united by a sense of X - I won't define what X is since I don't wish to offend anybody this morning - and it will take a rocket to shift them.
Perhaps Labour's best bet is therefore to (almost) forget these 40% and start growing an equal and opposite base. This means they should always seek to polarize rather than unite or (worse) triangulate. Argue for activist government. BIG focus on green. More identity politics. Push not play down socially progressive values. Given they face an English equivalent of the Trump Republicans, assemble a voting coalition similar to the Dems, the young, ethnic minorites, educated metropolitans, urban liberals, etc. Squeeze out the Lib Dems, force all LD voters to choose which side they're on.
I think this for better or worse might be where we're heading and "Labour" - or whatever we want to call ourselves - can do well in such a landscape.
Maybe. 40% of the electorate don't value decency, competence and the truth when choosing their politicians, which means Starmer is substantially wasting his time going on that pitch to current Conservative Party supporters. But presumably the 40% of support he has now, does value those things and would turn against him if he adopted the Johnson/Cummings playbook.
The problem is the electoral system The Conservatives can happily have an outright majority in parliament from a minority of voters on a ticket of incompetence, dishonesty and moral turpitude as long as they have more votes than the next biggest bloc , ie Labour. Starmer needs to get more votes than Johnson, either by himself or in coalition.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Their system is limited to the EEA. There's nothing spiteful about continuing to enforce their existing rules, however much it offends your sense of entitlement.
Utter nonsense. The system can easily be extended to cover other nations, as ours has been.
And Switzerland isn't in the EEA either - so you're wrong about that too.
There are lots of other countries that the EU or the UK system could be theoretically extended to too, do you consider all of those acts of spitefuless?
God, that's a pathetic attempt at whataboutism.
And I had you down as an intelligent poster.
No, it's the entire point. You think that you're entitled to special privileges that the rest of the world isn't. You're not.
Bollocks. It's not "privileges" it's the same practical arrangements in a win-win dynamic for any major/friendly European power.
You're just a sardonic, pompous Remoaner - just like the rest of them.
There's a staggering poll out on Trump's disapproval rating: -18. Just think about that for a moment. -18 with a little more than a week until main polling and with over 1/3rd of votes already cast. This is one of the reasons why I cannot see him winning.
I feel like cutting through is like a dam bursting. It builds up for ages and then hits hard. I couldn't believe how long May remained in front despite having totally lost control.
We've seen two chunks of collapse so far. One was after the non-story of Dom in Durham. (Never forget, that wasn't a story.) That lost the Conservatives their crisis bounce. That loss wasn't inevitable; look at New Zealand. After that, the Conservative lead settled at about 5 points. The other was after the exams fiascos. That saw the lead settle about 1 point. Both times, the collapse was followed by a new stasis
Something is making the Conservative bedrock vote sticky. My hunch is it's the "Brexit is in peril" vote, but we're about to see.
But rapid partial collapse followed by periods of apparent stability is how landslides begin...
To the bulk of the electorate brexit is done, they dont care what comes out of the negotiations they want the government to focus on the pandemic. They don’t follow the detail, don’t believe there will be lorry queues And food and medicine shortages, it’s all going to be fine boris says so. Will they notice the downsides if there are any, who knows but there will be some who wonder why Mr Patel is still here and we’re not putting Romanian Gypsies in camps.
I suspect that's right. 'Wolf' was cried prior to the Referendum and it didn't come. It was cried again this time last year and 'nothing has changed'. However if we do get 25-30% of the problems forecast in the early part of 2021, then, as suggested, the Tories lead might slip a bit more.If we get 50-60%, then the Government will be in real trouble. It could happen quite quickly, too. One thing that a Tory slide will make, contrarily, difficult is Boris' departure. He (and Dom) won't want to depart ignominiously, so if things are going wrong they'll hang open until they are pushed.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
The Brexit Show - featuring the World's worst winners ever!
Err.. Featuring the world's worst losers, surely?
I am pointing out why some of those losers are hated - because most British citizens can easily spot the sort of other British citizen who like to cheerfully cheer on an overseas bloc trying to stick it to us all.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
So acting reasonably now involves not commenting on Brexit? It is the biggest change to our trading arrangements in our lifetime and it is unreasonable for half the country to state their view until after its happened?
And if we did stay silent, we would then get told, you should have spoken up at the time, its too late to moan now.
Disliking remainers is a necessary part of this govts Brexit, its more to do with the leave media than remainers actions.
No, after the last 4 years of melodrama I really just find you lot insufferable.
Many lawyers are very articulate and persuasive and some are actors manque. And being able to persuade, to tell a story, to get people onside and with you is a key part of being a good lawyer and of being a leader. But lawyers’ skills tend to be used in an arena where the boundaries and rules are clear and understood (a courtroom etc) and outside that those skills don’t necessarily translate well. So they can be great in Parliament but not necessarily great outside it.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
The Brexit Show - featuring the World's worst winners ever!
Err.. Featuring the world's worst losers, surely?
I am pointing out why some of those losers are hated - because most British citizens can easily spot the sort of other British citizen who like to cheerfully cheer on an overseas bloc trying to stick it to us all.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
So acting reasonably now involves not commenting on Brexit? It is the biggest change to our trading arrangements in our lifetime and it is unreasonable for half the country to state their view until after its happened?
And if we did stay silent, we would then get told, you should have spoken up at the time, its too late to moan now.
Disliking remainers is a necessary part of this govts Brexit, its more to do with the leave media than remainers actions.
No, after the last 4 years of melodrama I really just find you lot insufferable.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
They probably feel that spite is a language that Brexiteers understand.
I'm not sure why Leavers are surprised by the antipathy felt towards them by Remainers. It seems quite logical. Remainers for the most part see them as neanderthal racists and however big their majority it doesn't make them any more palatable.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
It smacks much more of them deriving the satisfaction of feeling vindicated. The same kind of satisfaction I detect from hardcore Leavers at any perceived intransigence or unreasonableness from the EU.
And so we're still where we were, with you lot shouting "see, we told you they were bad eggs!" and them shouting "see, we told you were shooting us in the foot!", and, I hope, an increasing number of us in the middle wishing you'd all calm the fuck down.
You reckon you're in the middle?
You sure don't act like it - as your tiny track record of posts show.
Well yes, and there's an easy way to tell. I'm not angry all the time like you are. And please understand, I'm not trying to provoke you, I'm just concerned. Please stop and have a think about whether your anger levels are healthy.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Their system is limited to the EEA. There's nothing spiteful about continuing to enforce their existing rules, however much it offends your sense of entitlement.
Utter nonsense. The system can easily be extended to cover other nations, as ours has been.
And Switzerland isn't in the EEA either - so you're wrong about that too.
There are lots of other countries that the EU or the UK system could be theoretically extended to too, do you consider all of those acts of spitefuless?
God, that's a pathetic attempt at whataboutism.
And I had you down as an intelligent poster.
No, it's the entire point. You think that you're entitled to special privileges that the rest of the world isn't. You're not.
Bollocks. It's not "privileges" it's the same practical arrangements in a win-win dynamic for any major/friendly European power.
You're just a sardonic, pompous Remoaner - just like the rest of them.
When you announce a flounce you need to at least keep it up for a couple of hours...
District polling is supporting a strong shift to Biden state wise In 2016 when the state polls showed Clinton leading, the district polling was showing a different picture with Trump winning. Seems the polling as is so localised they picked up the education gap that national and state polling missed.
I do, but it's missing a couple of the district level polls that came out today - which, by the way, paint the same picture.
Though that data also shows Trump still leading in most Florida districts still and Biden only ahead by 2% in the 2 Michigan districts with 6% or 8% respectively refusing to declare who they are voting for, so may well be silent Trumps.
It does though have Biden ahead in every Pennsylvania district, up by 15% in one and ahead in every district from a Hillary state and also leading in 2 Texas districts to 1 for Trump and in NE02
God, it truly is PATHETIC how the same Remoaner posters are going through this thread 'liking' every crap argument put by fellow Remoaners, regardless of how shite they are (and almost are of them are).
Incels, losers and rejects who need to get a life.
This site truly has gone down the toilet.
I have better things to do with my day. So long, saddos.
Good riddance while you are in that mood, you prove why remainers still exist when most of us just want it over.
On topic: There's much to commend in this article, but I don't agree with a fairly central theme that Labour should be fighting on Johnson's home turf. He is good at sweeping rhetoric, and absolutely fucking terrible at detail. For me, killing this Tory administration ought to be a matter of death by a thousand cuts. And a good QC knows how to use a scalpel as well as a club. This is not a strategy that would work in many circumstances. There needs to be time (and there is), there needs to a government that is making mistakes so the cuts don't look like pedantry (there is). Further, there is a compelling rationale for not blundering in and making themselves hostages to fortune so early on. The government might, you know, actually get some things right. And any sweeping attacks you make which are then proven wrong become ammo to be fired back at you at a later date.
Another important point is that since the pandemic struck, politics has largely moved out of the streets and back indoors. Thank goodness for that, too. It's been such a welcome break to not have gangs of idiots harassing MPs on the streets. Johnson has a foot in that old world, but Starmer feels clean. There's a real hope that the cold rain of coronavirus is waking the country up from the fevered rampage it's been on, and that someone who doesn't look at all like a populist will attract voters. When Theresa May tried to ride the populist wave in 2017, it was a stiff and awkward performance. I think that wave has broken, so there's absolutely no reason for Starmer to repeat May's mistake. I have never voted Labour, but I'm impressed with Starmer so far. He's not making any bad mistakes, which is a low bar but a necessary one. When the policy ideas start to flow, I'll be ready to listen to Labour in a way I haven't been for the whole of my adult life so far. If a polling company approached me today and asked whom I would vote for, it wouldn't be Labour. But I was never the kind of person who would just suddenly drop everything and say yeah, red for me next time. If I am at all representative of a body of people in this country, then other people will be the same, dropping their instinctive opposition to Labour and saying ok, in your own time, let's hear what you've got to say.
Personally - and it may surprise people to hear me say this - I think the skills even of top QC’s - don’t necessarily translate very well to politics. They have their place but can be a bit overrated. Lawyers - even good ones - aren’t necessarily great communicators outside their natural environment.
Though some are brilliant at it 😏.
Hi Cyclefree
You would know more about this than me, so I may be completely wrong. If so please tell me.
The job of a lawyer is to argue the facts and the law, generally based on information supplied by somebody else - a client, a solicitor, a junior counsel - to a small group of people face to face who have to pay attention. That is to say, know what they need to say and say it. Imagination is not needed or indeed helpful, as it might lead to them going off script.
Meanwhile, a politician needs to think up what to say, and then sell it to a very large disparate group of people who don’t have to listen if they don’t want to.
Would it therefore be fair to say that lawyers do not always have the qualities required to be leaders, rather than just advocates?
I appreciate many lawyers had vivid imaginations - Tony Blair’s fantasies about WMD spring to mind - but apart from him are Thatcher and Attlee the only barristers at law to be PM since 1922? Although again they were two very successful PMs.
A big topic this. It depends on what type of lawyer you are talking about. Criminal lawyers have to have empathetic skills because of the nature of the work and have to be able to weave a story to jurors who do not have to listen.
Civil lawyers are seeking to persuade a different sort of audience. One of the most cutting remarks a judge can make to a civil lawyer is that his speech is a “jury speech” ie stronger on emotions than legal argument.
Many lawyers are very articulate and persuasive and some are actors manque. And being able to persuade, to tell a story, to get people onside and with you is a key part of being a good lawyer and of being a leader. But lawyers’ skills tend to be used in an arena where the boundaries and rules are clear and understood (a courtroom etc) and outside that those skills don’t necessarily translate well. So they can be great in Parliament but not necessarily great outside it.
More is needed to be an effective leader I think. Managing people, for instance. Plus sometimes other attributes which come with being a good lawyer - caution, care with words, calmness and rationality- may hold them back. Politics can be colourful and vivid and brutal and emotional.
Blair didn’t practise much as a lawyer but was an effective politician. Hilary Clinton was a good lawyer but bloody useless as a politician. John Smith was pretty good. Thatcher I think learnt a great deal of her communication skills from her lay preaching when younger rather than her work as a tax barrister.
Hard to generalise but hope this gives you a bit of an answer. I’m sure other legal bods on here will have a view.
I would agree with most of that, especially the part about managing people. A solicitor who has been managing partner for a large firm or someone with your experience in terms managing a bureaucracy is much better placed to run a government or a political party than an advocate or barrister. Most of us are in that role because we rather like working alone or in very small groups, we like being the one to make all the calls, we are not good at delegating and we are prone, over time, to a degree of arrogance about the rightness of our opinions.
This may well contribute to a good performance in the narrow context of a court hearing or even PMQs but a government or effective team it does not make.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
Win people over to what? It is a done deal. We have Brexited. There is no case to make for staying in because we cannot.
You won. Deal with it.
Win people over to re-joining the EU in the long-term, which we know is the play.
There's nothing for me to get over. I'm giving you free advice on how to succeed in your long-term objective.
Remember: the EU won't take us back unless there's a national consensus, not a 50:50 split, so all this attitude does is perpetuate a bitter and divided country.
Ah.. well, there we differ. Given the state of the country, I do not want the UK to rejoin because it is such a bitter and divided country, and the divisions may not yet be over.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
The Brexit Show - featuring the World's worst winners ever!
Err.. Featuring the world's worst losers, surely?
I am pointing out why some of those losers are hated - because most British citizens can easily spot the sort of other British citizen who like to cheerfully cheer on an overseas bloc trying to stick it to us all.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
So acting reasonably now involves not commenting on Brexit? It is the biggest change to our trading arrangements in our lifetime and it is unreasonable for half the country to state their view until after its happened?
And if we did stay silent, we would then get told, you should have spoken up at the time, its too late to moan now.
Disliking remainers is a necessary part of this govts Brexit, its more to do with the leave media than remainers actions.
No, after the last 4 years of melodrama I really just find you lot insufferable.
Yes, I think the East/West Berlin comparison with Wales is slightly offensive.
I'd also note that many people thought Dominic Cummings should be locked up for ever for travelling up and down the country in violation of travel restrictions. Many of those same people now seem to take the view that the Welsh government imposing travel restrictions is tantamount to fascism.
The comparison with Berlin is hyperbolic.
But if -- as is widely reported in the Welsh media & on the BBC -- Drakeford has asked English police to stop Welsh people leaving Wales, to turn them back and to report them to the home police force, then that is a major, major blunder.
The optics are absolutely terrible. It would be bad enough if he asked the Welsh police to do it, but to ask the English police, once they have left Wales, is a really monumental error .
And anyone who gets one of these fines is not going to pay it, but challenge it. It seems pretty unclear to me whether Drakeford actually has this authority.
If Drakeford's policy does turn out to be a disaster could we see the Conservatives beating Labour in Wales for the first time in a national election for over 100 years next year?
It is not out of the question, in April a Yougov Welsh Assembly poll had it Con 38% Lab 32% Plaid 19% on the constituency vote and Con 37% Lab 29% and Plaid 18% on the regional vote
1. The Tories beat Labour in a National Election in Wales in 2009.
2. There is a vast pool of voters who do not vote in the Welsh Assembly elections (over 55 per cent). If the Tories (or Plaid) can get just 15 per cent of them to vote for their party, then they would win.
3. Drakeford (who is not a great communicator and not noticeably competent) was on course to lose, but the Rona came to his help and he is seen in Wales as having had a good pandemic (at least compared to Boris).
I think if his lockdown is seen as not achieving much, and there a few instances of Welsh Government ministers caught not obeying the rules (e.g. travelling to England), and there are a few arrests and fines for ridiculous things, then the gloss could come of his pandemic bounce. It is hard to say who would then benefit -- probably the Don't Vote party.
There is though an interesting fight developing in Cardiff West, between Drakeford and a maverick but popular Welsh politician, Neil McEvoy.
Drakeford's seat is marginal, he has a 3.7 per cent majority -- and he could lose his seat.
They're still on that?! My gods, they need to know you can only push an outrage so far - she was wrong to act in that manner, but the Speaker rebuked her, they got a chance to moan about it on twitter, that should be an end to it.
I kind of get that they probably get a lot of abuse from people which her actions may encourage, but let's be real, MPs get treated like crap on social media anyway.
Still Brexit, I think, although that's as much a point of view as a policy act. Anyone who values decency, competence and the truth has abandoned the Conservative Party. We're at a 40% bedrock, who won't shift their views for any of those things.
Agree with this. Brexit has proved the ultimate wedge issue and has played big time for the Tories and against Labour. We now have in the blue corner a "base" of 40% of voters who for all their differences are united by a sense of X - I won't define what X is since I don't wish to offend anybody this morning - and it will take a rocket to shift them.
Perhaps Labour's best bet is therefore to (almost) forget these 40% and start growing an equal and opposite base. This means they should always seek to polarize rather than unite or (worse) triangulate. Argue for activist government. BIG focus on green. More identity politics. Push not play down socially progressive values. Given they face an English equivalent of the Trump Republicans, assemble a voting coalition similar to the Dems, the young, ethnic minorites, educated metropolitans, urban liberals, etc. Squeeze out the Lib Dems, force all LD voters to choose which side they're on.
I think this for better or worse might be where we're heading and "Labour" - or whatever we want to call ourselves - can do well in such a landscape.
Eh? Wasn't that exactly the Corbyn strategy? Far from being a magic electoral bullet, it barely works in the US, where the underlying demographics are far more favourable to it than they are in the UK. Biden is winning by pinching former Republican voters and not giving two hoots about what the young, blue-haired 'progressives' want, even to the extent of vetting Republicans that he might wish to serve in his Cabinet! Classic triangulation.
It will be an interesting election up there next time. The Tories may well not hold on to all of them, but a good number sticking with them could see them home once again.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
The Brexit Show - featuring the World's worst winners ever!
Err.. Featuring the world's worst losers, surely?
I am pointing out why some of those losers are hated - because most British citizens can easily spot the sort of other British citizen who like to cheerfully cheer on an overseas bloc trying to stick it to us all.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
So acting reasonably now involves not commenting on Brexit? It is the biggest change to our trading arrangements in our lifetime and it is unreasonable for half the country to state their view until after its happened?
And if we did stay silent, we would then get told, you should have spoken up at the time, its too late to moan now.
Disliking remainers is a necessary part of this govts Brexit, its more to do with the leave media than remainers actions.
No, after the last 4 years of melodrama I really just find you lot insufferable.
District polling is supporting a strong shift to Biden state wise In 2016 when the state polls showed Clinton leading, the district polling was showing a different picture with Trump winning. Seems the polling as is so localised they picked up the education gap that national and state polling missed.
I do, but it's missing a couple of the district level polls that came out today - which, by the way, paint the same picture.
Though that data also shows Trump still leading in most Florida districts still and Biden only ahead by 2% in the 2 Michigan districts with 6% or 8% respectively refusing to declare who they are voting for, so may well by silent Trumps.
It does though have Biden ahead in every Pennsylvania district, up by 15% in one and every district from a Hillary state and also leading in 2 Texas districts to 1 for Trump and in NE02
Its more the shift from 2016 as districts contribute to the whole state result. If trump wins in a Florida district but by significantly less then he is going to need to make those numbers back in other districts. However it seems the shift is being seen generally towards Biden.
On topic: There's much to commend in this article, but I don't agree with a fairly central theme that Labour should be fighting on Johnson's home turf. He is good at sweeping rhetoric, and absolutely fucking terrible at detail. For me, killing this Tory administration ought to be a matter of death by a thousand cuts. And a good QC knows how to use a scalpel as well as a club. This is not a strategy that would work in many circumstances. There needs to be time (and there is), there needs to a government that is making mistakes so the cuts don't look like pedantry (there is). Further, there is a compelling rationale for not blundering in and making themselves hostages to fortune so early on. The government might, you know, actually get some things right. And any sweeping attacks you make which are then proven wrong become ammo to be fired back at you at a later date.
Another important point is that since the pandemic struck, politics has largely moved out of the streets and back indoors. Thank goodness for that, too. It's been such a welcome break to not have gangs of idiots harassing MPs on the streets. Johnson has a foot in that old world, but Starmer feels clean. There's a real hope that the cold rain of coronavirus is waking the country up from the fevered rampage it's been on, and that someone who doesn't look at all like a populist will attract voters. When Theresa May tried to ride the populist wave in 2017, it was a stiff and awkward performance. I think that wave has broken, so there's absolutely no reason for Starmer to repeat May's mistake. I have never voted Labour, but I'm impressed with Starmer so far. He's not making any bad mistakes, which is a low bar but a necessary one. When the policy ideas start to flow, I'll be ready to listen to Labour in a way I haven't been for the whole of my adult life so far. If a polling company approached me today and asked whom I would vote for, it wouldn't be Labour. But I was never the kind of person who would just suddenly drop everything and say yeah, red for me next time. If I am at all representative of a body of people in this country, then other people will be the same, dropping their instinctive opposition to Labour and saying ok, in your own time, let's hear what you've got to say.
Personally - and it may surprise people to hear me say this - I think the skills even of top QC’s - don’t necessarily translate very well to politics. They have their place but can be a bit overrated. Lawyers - even good ones - aren’t necessarily great communicators outside their natural environment.
Though some are brilliant at it 😏.
Hi Cyclefree
You would know more about this than me, so I may be completely wrong. If so please tell me.
The job of a lawyer is to argue the facts and the law, generally based on information supplied by somebody else - a client, a solicitor, a junior counsel - to a small group of people face to face who have to pay attention. That is to say, know what they need to say and say it. Imagination is not needed or indeed helpful, as it might lead to them going off script.
Meanwhile, a politician needs to think up what to say, and then sell it to a very large disparate group of people who don’t have to listen if they don’t want to.
Would it therefore be fair to say that lawyers do not always have the qualities required to be leaders, rather than just advocates?
I appreciate many lawyers had vivid imaginations - Tony Blair’s fantasies about WMD spring to mind - but apart from him are Thatcher and Attlee the only barristers at law to be PM since 1922? Although again they were two very successful PMs.
A big topic this. It depends on what type of lawyer you are talking about. Criminal lawyers have to have empathetic skills because of the nature of the work and have to be able to weave a story to jurors who do not have to listen.
Civil lawyers are seeking to persuade a different sort of audience. One of the most cutting remarks a judge can make to a civil lawyer is that his speech is a “jury speech” ie stronger on emotions than legal argument.
Many lawyers are very articulate and persuasive and some are actors manque. And being able to persuade, to tell a story, to get people onside and with you is a key part of being a good lawyer and of being a leader. But lawyers’ skills tend to be used in an arena where the boundaries and rules are clear and understood (a courtroom etc) and outside that those skills don’t necessarily translate well. So they can be great in Parliament but not necessarily great outside it.
More is needed to be an effective leader I think. Managing people, for instance. Plus sometimes other attributes which come with being a good lawyer - caution, care with words, calmness and rationality- may hold them back. Politics can be colourful and vivid and brutal and emotional.
Blair didn’t practise much as a lawyer but was an effective politician. Hilary Clinton was a good lawyer but bloody useless as a politician. John Smith was pretty good. Thatcher I think learnt a great deal of her communication skills from her lay preaching when younger rather than her work as a tax barrister.
Hard to generalise but hope this gives you a bit of an answer. I’m sure other legal bods on here will have a view.
IANAL but away from leadership, the backbench MP who is also a lawyer may have an advantage over other colleagues in being able to read and understand the legislation they are voting on. Party leaders and whips might prefer lobby fodder, of course.
Yes, I think the East/West Berlin comparison with Wales is slightly offensive.
I'd also note that many people thought Dominic Cummings should be locked up for ever for travelling up and down the country in violation of travel restrictions. Many of those same people now seem to take the view that the Welsh government imposing travel restrictions is tantamount to fascism.
The comparison with Berlin is hyperbolic.
But if -- as is widely reported in the Welsh media & on the BBC -- Drakeford has asked English police to stop Welsh people leaving Wales, to turn them back and to report them to the home police force, then that is a major, major blunder.
The optics are absolutely terrible. It would be bad enough if he asked the Welsh police to do it, but to ask the English police, once they have left Wales, is a really monumental error .
And anyone who gets one of these fines is not going to pay it, but challenge it. It seems pretty unclear to me whether Drakeford actually has this authority.
If Drakeford's policy does turn out to be a disaster could we see the Conservatives beating Labour in Wales for the first time in a national election for over 100 years next year?
It is not out of the question, in April a Yougov Welsh Assembly poll had it Con 38% Lab 32% Plaid 19% on the constituency vote and Con 37% Lab 29% and Plaid 18% on the regional vote
1. The Tories beat Labour in a National Election in Wales in 2009.
2. There is a vast pool of voters who do not vote in the Welsh Assembly elections (over 55 per cent). If the Tories (or Plaid) can get just 15 per cent of them to vote for their party, then they would win.
3. Drakeford (who is not a great communicator and not noticeably competent) was on course to lose, but the Rona came to his help and he is seen in Wales as having had a good pandemic (at least compared to Boris).
I think if his lockdown is seen as not achieving much, and there a few instances of Welsh Government ministers caught not obeying the rules (e.g. travelling to England), and there are a few arrests and fines for ridiculous things, then the gloss could come of his pandemic bounce. It is hard to say who would then benefit -- probably the Don't Vote party.
There is though an interesting fight developing in Cardiff West, between Drakeford and a maverick but popular Welsh politician, Neil McEvoy.
Drakeford's seat is marginal, he has a 3.7 per cent majority -- and he could lose his seat.
The European elections were not a UK national election or a Welsh Assembly election but a Europe wide election and the Tories got 1 MEP the same as Labour in Wales anyway and only led the popular vote by less than 1%
I agree though tapping non voters would help and if the lockdown really hits the Welsh economy and ministers are seen to be ignoring the voters Welsh Labour could well lose and Drakeford lose his seat, especially as the Tories got 36% at GE19 in Wales so if they held their vote then and Labour lost about a quarter of its 2019 vote of 40% to Plaid as often happens in Assembly elections the Tories would top the poll
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Must be an element of making a point in it. On the other hand, we are asking for a much less close economic and security arrangement than Iceland, Norway or Switzerland has with the EU so you can see their logic. It will be a massive ball-ache when I am travelling to the EU on business again, on the other hand the thought of all those leave voters looking at their blue passports while they queue at Spanish immigration will warm my heart. Sorry to be petty but as Leavers like to say, we voted out, get over it.
Yes, this is right. The UTOA Remainers on here can barely conceal their delight: they are thrilled that Britons post-Brexit might be treated with unnecessary bureaucratic pedantry at the border.
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
The Brexit Show - featuring the World's worst winners ever!
Err.. Featuring the world's worst losers, surely?
I am pointing out why some of those losers are hated - because most British citizens can easily spot the sort of other British citizen who like to cheerfully cheer on an overseas bloc trying to stick it to us all.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
So acting reasonably now involves not commenting on Brexit? It is the biggest change to our trading arrangements in our lifetime and it is unreasonable for half the country to state their view until after its happened?
And if we did stay silent, we would then get told, you should have spoken up at the time, its too late to moan now.
Disliking remainers is a necessary part of this govts Brexit, its more to do with the leave media than remainers actions.
No, after the last 4 years of melodrama I really just find you lot insufferable.
It is the media that produce the melodrama!
Not here on PB.
Depends if you count twitter as media.
It barely counts as communication.
It is not productive communication (in politics at least) but it is certainly effective at producing melodrama, including on here. Tiny subsets of opinion are assumed to reflect "everyone in the opposite camp" time and time again.
Lol, Johnson and conservative values don't belong in the same sentence.
But yes, there are two problems with Starmer's Labour; Corbynism runs deep and hasn't been totally excised, but also Starmer isn't the best cultural fit to bring red wall voters back.
Lol, Johnson and conservative values don't belong in the same sentence.
But yes, there are two problems with Starmer's Labour; Corbynism runs deep and hasn't been totally excised, but also Starmer isn't the best cultural fit to bring red wall voters back.
That is a can of worms I wouldn't have opened. I doubt every single future off-colour comment from any Conservative MP will elicit an apology from Johnson. The stuff last night from Ben Bradley is really not nice, but it's hardly for the PM to apologise for him. The signatories of that letter haven't thought this through.
Yes, I think the East/West Berlin comparison with Wales is slightly offensive.
I'd also note that many people thought Dominic Cummings should be locked up for ever for travelling up and down the country in violation of travel restrictions. Many of those same people now seem to take the view that the Welsh government imposing travel restrictions is tantamount to fascism.
The comparison with Berlin is hyperbolic.
But if -- as is widely reported in the Welsh media & on the BBC -- Drakeford has asked English police to stop Welsh people leaving Wales, to turn them back and to report them to the home police force, then that is a major, major blunder.
The optics are absolutely terrible. It would be bad enough if he asked the Welsh police to do it, but to ask the English police, once they have left Wales, is a really monumental error .
And anyone who gets one of these fines is not going to pay it, but challenge it. It seems pretty unclear to me whether Drakeford actually has this authority.
If Drakeford's policy does turn out to be a disaster could we see the Conservatives beating Labour in Wales for the first time in a national election for over 100 years next year?
It is not out of the question, in April a Yougov Welsh Assembly poll had it Con 38% Lab 32% Plaid 19% on the constituency vote and Con 37% Lab 29% and Plaid 18% on the regional vote
1. The Tories beat Labour in a National Election in Wales in 2009.
2. There is a vast pool of voters who do not vote in the Welsh Assembly elections (over 55 per cent). If the Tories (or Plaid) can get just 15 per cent of them to vote for their party, then they would win.
3. Drakeford (who is not a great communicator and not noticeably competent) was on course to lose, but the Rona came to his help and he is seen in Wales as having had a good pandemic (at least compared to Boris).
I think if his lockdown is seen as not achieving much, and there a few instances of Welsh Government ministers caught not obeying the rules (e.g. travelling to England), and there are a few arrests and fines for ridiculous things, then the gloss could come of his pandemic bounce. It is hard to say who would then benefit -- probably the Don't Vote party.
There is though an interesting fight developing in Cardiff West, between Drakeford and a maverick but popular Welsh politician, Neil McEvoy.
Drakeford's seat is marginal, he has a 3.7 per cent majority -- and he could lose his seat.
The European elections were not a UK national election or a Welsh Assembly election but a Europe wide election and the Tories got 1 MEP the same as Labour in Wales anyway and only led the popular vote by less than 1%
I agree though tapping non voters would help and if the lockdown really hits the Welsh economy and ministers are seen to be ignoring the voters Welsh Labour could well lose and Drakeford lose his seat, especially as the Tories got 36% at GE19 in Wales so if they held their vote then and Labour lost about a quarter of its 2019 vote of 40% to Plaid as often happens in Assembly elections the Tories would top the poll
I don't think the Toris will top the poll. Their leader in Wales is less impressive than Drakeford.
Both the Tory and Labour Party in Wales made the wrong choice of leader. The Labour Party should have chose Eluned Morgan (not Drakeford) and the Tories should have chosen Suzy Davies (not Paul).
It would probably help the Labour Party, if McEvoy took out Drakeford in Cardiff West.
Interesting bit of 'cakeism' yesterday; the Government apparently, belatedly, realises that from Jan 1st travellers to Europe will have to go through the 'non-EU passports' channel, and that will take longer.
And when they experience that, people aren't going to like it. So it asked for the status quo to be maintained and the EU, understandably, said No.
In this context, now one can travel to the Canary Islands again, people are trying to do so, and, in the event that that situation will prevail over Christmas, many people are going to be coming back after New Year. Wonder if there are going to stories of hold-ups while returning.
This is a classic example of Remainers warning that something could happen because of Brexit, Brexiteers saying it wouldn't, and now Brexiteers moaning about how terrible it is. People will soon find out that a passport's colour is its least important characteristic.
The EU have worked out that most Britons only really go to the EU on holiday and so this is the most effective way of sticking it to them and making them feel the consequences of Brexit.
There's absolutely no reason for it. We aren't doing it to EU visitors, nor Japanese, American or Australian/NZ visitors now. They don't do it to Iceland/Norway or Swiss visitors.
It's pure spite. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Its a negotiation. They know we want this part of the deal more than they do. They will want something for it. Not spite, just how countries negotiate with each other.
Yes, I think that's right. It's a negotiating stick.
But that is very different for spite. We asked to negotiate our deals with them, not the other way around. Of course they should leverage their advantages, as we should ours. It is predictable, rational behaviour not emotionally driven revenge.
Nah, there's definitely a bit of spite in their as well. This is a highly emotionally charged negotiation. That factors into what positions are taken and how hard they are leveraged.
Talk to anyone who works for any EU institution about Brexit and see what they say (disclosure: I have).
As I said yesterday, this is one of those "consequences" for leaving that doesn't apply to countries who were never in it.
Again, it's our own fault. From day 1 after the referendum we should have been treating the EU as an informal enemy and working in that basis. Our failure to do so and to assume that they were still a formal ally has meant we've always been playing catch up. Even now we're still doing it. Had we got the initial stance right then we'd have been prepared for all of these "consequences for leaving" a lot better than now.
I agree with the first bit, and I might put the second slightly differently: I wouldn't treat them as an informal enemy, but I think it was naïve to expect friendly behaviour toward us as an ex-member state.
I agree we never prepared for all the consequences either, in order to maximise our negotiating leverage, and that was a mistake too.
I think my point is more that individual nations are obviously still informal and formal allies through various different treaties and agreements, the EU is an informal enemy because we don't currently have anything that says we aren't.
There are, IMO, four categories of nation: Formal enemies - Iran, NK, probably China Informal enemies - Russia, Belarus, Argentina, Turkey, some other nations, the UN, EU Informal Allies - most other nations Formal allies - most NATO nations, NZ, Australia, Japan and other nations we have trade and defence deals with.
My point is that the EU isn't a formal ally or formal enemy because we haven't got a declaration of either. That leaves them in the middle somewhere and they are behaving like someone scorned so treating them as an informal enemy makes much more sense than either of the ally definitions.
An informal ally would be looking for areas of synergy and minimising disruption, the EU aren't doing that, add in our own fifth columnists within the state and government and treating them as an ally has been our undoing. It has left us unprepared for all of these small issues that we should have resolved a long time ago. The assumption that the EU would treat us as a third nation has been proved wrong time and again and we keep falling into that trap. Third nations have access to e-gates, they get off the shelf trade deals, they get defined state aid rules and post-action arbitration, they don't have their fish stolen from them and they get standard state of origin rules. The EU has very clearly decided the UK isn't an informal ally as Canada or Japan was before they signed a trade deal so we should have reciprocated.
If people want to see or understand why Labour have not "broken through" they need do no more than read @Cyclefree 's piece.
The inbuilt and unwarranted assumptions are just alien to the majority of this country. Remainer angst is redolent in every sentence. How could the people have been so stupid as to vote for Brexit and then, when the remainer Parliament lied and lied, kicked them out on their arses giving Boris an 80 strong majority? How deluded and stupid people are. How could anyone believe that anyone who thought Brexit was a good idea was right about anything, ever? Or competent? How can they not see this (gnashing of teeth).
The majority of us (as established by a referendum and an election) really don't see it that way. We see a government struggling with a pandemic that has caused chaos around the world, who is trying to negotiate with the EU with a significant chunk of its own country cheering the EU on, tweeting every contemptuous aside with glee. It pisses us off. And it makes it us overlook the many, many flaws of this government.
Just a thought.
Eh? There is no reference to Brexit at all in the piece. Quite why you need to replay your Brexit angst is a mystery.
And my very first reason says pretty much what you have - namely that people are giving the government the benefit of the doubt because we need it to succeed, regardless of whether we support it or not. That is my view and it is incidentally my view on Brexit - namely that I want a deal with the EU and for Brexit not to be a failure because if it is it is me and mine who suffer if it is a failure.
People are not really rushing to Labour because they don’t see any need to and because, as @Casino_Royale has said, many of them probably feel that it does not share their values.
Come on @Cyclefree , are you really saying that your contempt for this government isn't based on this fundamental difference of view? One of the values Labour doesn't share is Brexit. SKS tries hard not to talk about it but people remember the role he played in the remainer Parliament. He is trying hard to move on from it and, maybe, after January he will be able to but right now its giving Boris the same bedrock of support that Sturgeon gets from Independence supporters who back her no matter how ridiculous it gets.
You have me wrong. My contempt for this government is because I think it does not really value those things which make a democracy work and thrive - the rule of law, free speech, the value of scrutiny, independent civic institutions, integrity and responsibility. I have much more sympathy for why people voted for Brexit than you assume - as my articles in 2016 and 2017 would have shown you.
My views on the political values I cherish and which I think this government does not are best set out here:-
Glad to see the victimhood that characterised Brexiteers' Worldview has not been dimmed by the actuality of Brexit.
Which is nice...
Yes, Brexit is Passive Aggressive behaviour writ large. Now look at all the self harm that you Remainers made me do.
Brexit has both been done and will never end, because our relations with the continent have always dominated our foreign policy. Why should that ever change.
Politically I am fairly centrist, mostly an Orange booker, but just as Labour has permanently lost some Brexiteers, the Conservatives have lost me for a generation or longer. I voted Conservative in 2010, but won't be doing so again. If a Tory manifesto supported EEA application, I would think about it.
They're still on that?! My gods, they need to know you can only push an outrage so far - she was wrong to act in that manner, but the Speaker rebuked her, they got a chance to moan about it on twitter, that should be an end to it.
I kind of get that they probably get a lot of abuse from people which her actions may encourage, but let's be real, MPs get treated like crap on social media anyway.
Lol, Johnson and conservative values don't belong in the same sentence.
But yes, there are two problems with Starmer's Labour; Corbynism runs deep and hasn't been totally excised, but also Starmer isn't the best cultural fit to bring red wall voters back.
Don't blame me, I voted for Nandy.
She is a lightweight, for the moment Starmer has Remainers and has won back LD 2019 voters, including in the North but he will not win over Red Wall Leave voters unless we go to No Deal which turns out to be devastating economically or the Tories kept free movement or compromised over fishing which is not happening, though in the latter case many of them would go to Farage
Yes, I think the East/West Berlin comparison with Wales is slightly offensive.
I'd also note that many people thought Dominic Cummings should be locked up for ever for travelling up and down the country in violation of travel restrictions. Many of those same people now seem to take the view that the Welsh government imposing travel restrictions is tantamount to fascism.
The comparison with Berlin is hyperbolic.
But if -- as is widely reported in the Welsh media & on the BBC -- Drakeford has asked English police to stop Welsh people leaving Wales, to turn them back and to report them to the home police force, then that is a major, major blunder.
The optics are absolutely terrible. It would be bad enough if he asked the Welsh police to do it, but to ask the English police, once they have left Wales, is a really monumental error .
And anyone who gets one of these fines is not going to pay it, but challenge it. It seems pretty unclear to me whether Drakeford actually has this authority.
If Drakeford's policy does turn out to be a disaster could we see the Conservatives beating Labour in Wales for the first time in a national election for over 100 years next year?
It is not out of the question, in April a Yougov Welsh Assembly poll had it Con 38% Lab 32% Plaid 19% on the constituency vote and Con 37% Lab 29% and Plaid 18% on the regional vote
1. The Tories beat Labour in a National Election in Wales in 2009.
2. There is a vast pool of voters who do not vote in the Welsh Assembly elections (over 55 per cent). If the Tories (or Plaid) can get just 15 per cent of them to vote for their party, then they would win.
3. Drakeford (who is not a great communicator and not noticeably competent) was on course to lose, but the Rona came to his help and he is seen in Wales as having had a good pandemic (at least compared to Boris).
I think if his lockdown is seen as not achieving much, and there a few instances of Welsh Government ministers caught not obeying the rules (e.g. travelling to England), and there are a few arrests and fines for ridiculous things, then the gloss could come of his pandemic bounce. It is hard to say who would then benefit -- probably the Don't Vote party.
There is though an interesting fight developing in Cardiff West, between Drakeford and a maverick but popular Welsh politician, Neil McEvoy.
Drakeford's seat is marginal, he has a 3.7 per cent majority -- and he could lose his seat.
The European elections were not a UK national election or a Welsh Assembly election but a Europe wide election and the Tories got 1 MEP the same as Labour in Wales anyway and only led the popular vote by less than 1%
I agree though tapping non voters would help and if the lockdown really hits the Welsh economy and ministers are seen to be ignoring the voters Welsh Labour could well lose and Drakeford lose his seat, especially as the Tories got 36% at GE19 in Wales so if they held their vote then and Labour lost about a quarter of its 2019 vote of 40% to Plaid as often happens in Assembly elections the Tories would top the poll
I don't think the Toris will top the poll. Their leader in Wales is less impressive than Drakeford.
Both the Tory and Labour Party in Wales made the wrong choice of leader. The Labour Party should have chose Eluned Morgan (not Drakeford) and the Tories should have chosen Suzy Davies (not Paul).
It would probably help the Labour Party, if McEvoy took out Drakeford in Cardiff West.
McEvoy won't take out Drakeford in Cardiff West in his new Welsh National Party (WNP) incarnation. He has good levels of popularity with many in Fairwater particularly but Plaid will stand and he will split the Nat vote. Many in Plaid hate him as much as Labour activists do.
They're still on that?! My gods, they need to know you can only push an outrage so far - she was wrong to act in that manner, but the Speaker rebuked her, they got a chance to moan about it on twitter, that should be an end to it.
I kind of get that they probably get a lot of abuse from people which her actions may encourage, but let's be real, MPs get treated like crap on social media anyway.
Don't most large firms have subsidised canteens?
Encourage people time to sit and eat their meals with other people away from their desks? I doubt that is something the many large firms who measure how long people take when they go the toilet, or how many keystrokes they do per hour are doing. Some will, but I think in general that is from a different time and mindset.
Lol, Johnson and conservative values don't belong in the same sentence.
But yes, there are two problems with Starmer's Labour; Corbynism runs deep and hasn't been totally excised, but also Starmer isn't the best cultural fit to bring red wall voters back.
Don't blame me, I voted for Nandy.
She is a lightweight, for the moment Starmer has Remainers and has won back LD 2019 voters, including in the North but he will not win over Red Wall Leave voters unless we go to No Deal which turns out to be devastating economically or the Tories kept free movement or compromised over fishing which is not happening, though in the latter case many of them would go to Farage
Nobody cares about fishing.
Anyway I heard both Keir and Lisa speak and Lisa got it better than Keir did. They were both good though, just Nandy was better.
IANAL but away from leadership, the backbench MP who is also a lawyer may have an advantage over other colleagues in being able to read and understand the legislation they are voting on. Party leaders and whips might prefer lobby fodder, of course.
On this point, I found that detailed non-partisan scrutiny was viewed by front-benchers and civil servants alike as tiresome pettifogging. I remember pointing out a mistake in one Bill which reversed the obvious meaning of the clause. The senior clerk in the Table Office who I queried it with said "Well, thank you, but backbenchers aren't usually supposed to worry about this sort of thing - no doubt it would have been picked up later in the proceedings." One would get a similar response in Committee stages - polite acceptance in a tone of exasperated irony. If you wanted to disagree with the principle of the Bill, fine, it was accepted that that's what you were there for. But suggestions on wording to avoid problems in interpretation - I'm not talking about missing commas and suchliker but actual flaws - were seen as annoying.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54672736
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-54669257
It satisfies their desire for vengeance. It also shows why they are so widely despised.
Its a monster election otherwise, potentially under all manner of restrictions.
Both times, the collapse was followed by a new stasis
Something is making the Conservative bedrock vote sticky. My hunch is it's the "Brexit is in peril" vote, but we're about to see.
But rapid partial collapse followed by periods of apparent stability is how landslides begin...
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43895&src=email
Perhaps Labour's best bet is therefore to (almost) forget these 40% and start growing an equal and opposite base. This means they should always seek to polarize rather than unite or (worse) triangulate. Argue for activist government. BIG focus on green. More identity politics. Push not play down socially progressive values. Given they face an English equivalent of the Trump Republicans, assemble a voting coalition similar to the Dems, the young, ethnic minorites, educated metropolitans, urban liberals, etc. Squeeze out the Lib Dems, force all LD voters to choose which side they're on.
I think this for better or worse might be where we're heading and "Labour" - or whatever we want to call ourselves - can do well in such a landscape.
And my very first reason says pretty much what you have - namely that people are giving the government the benefit of the doubt because we need it to succeed, regardless of whether we support it or not. That is my view and it is incidentally my view on Brexit - namely that I want a deal with the EU and for Brexit not to be a failure because if it is it is me and mine who suffer if it is a failure.
People are not really rushing to Labour because they don’t see any need to and because, as @Casino_Royale has said, many of them probably feel that it does not share their values.
Talk to anyone who works for any EU institution about Brexit and see what they say (disclosure: I have).
I'm a tough negotiator, playing my cards effectively.
You're being spiteful.
The EU is a tough negotiator, playing its cards effectively.
The UK is a spiteful child.
Again, it's our own fault. From day 1 after the referendum we should have been treating the EU as an informal enemy and working in that basis. Our failure to do so and to assume that they were still a formal ally has meant we've always been playing catch up. Even now we're still doing it. Had we got the initial stance right then we'd have been prepared for all of these "consequences for leaving" a lot better than now.
I am pointing out why some of those losers are hated - because most British citizens can easily spot the sort of other British citizen who like to cheerfully cheer on an overseas bloc trying to stick it to us all.
If they wanted to more convincingly make their case - and win people over in the long-term - Remainers would act reasonably and simply let the facts of Brexit (as they would see it) speak for themselves after the event.
And so we're still where we were, with you lot shouting "see, we told you they were bad eggs!" and them shouting "see, we told you were shooting us in the foot!", and, I hope, an increasing number of us in the middle wishing you'd all calm the fuck down.
It's a republican battle very for sure but like almost anything that's happened this election I doubt much will change.
We will see early next week what the debate did if anything. Though roughly around now the 2016 narrowing started to be seen, even in state polls, so Trump will need the same to be occuring soon, the current narrowing seen is small and has to go further than 2016.
Have you not noticed the visceral hatred and spite displayed by many on the Brexit side in the UK for anything and anybody that has the EU label attached to it?
But if -- as is widely reported in the Welsh media & on the BBC -- Drakeford has asked English police to stop Welsh people leaving Wales, to turn them back and to report them to the home police force, then that is a major, major blunder.
The optics are absolutely terrible. It would be bad enough if he asked the Welsh police to do it, but to ask the English police, once they have left Wales, is a really monumental error .
And anyone who gets one of these fines is not going to pay it, but challenge it. It seems pretty unclear to me whether Drakeford actually has this authority.
Labour and Starmer have made enormous progress but not with the electorate.
Each Wednesday, almost without fail, SKS skewers Boris on some point or other. The public might not notice but ask any journalist, any pundit, and most crucially any Conservative MP if the Prime Minister is up to the job. Boris himself must know too.
I agree we never prepared for all the consequences either, in order to maximise our negotiating leverage, and that was a mistake too.
You won. Deal with it.
And if we did stay silent, we would then get told, you should have spoken up at the time, its too late to moan now.
Disliking remainers is a necessary part of this govts Brexit, its more to do with the leave media than remainers actions.
However, this is exactly how many Britons felt before Brexit and, crucially, after the Lisbon Treaty in particular was rammed through without a vote. The ratcheting effect of the Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam, the EU constitution and Lisbon treaties through the 90s and 00s means there was zero trust or confidence in the EU by the time the referendum came around - many Britons felt it was their last and only chance to get out before it was too late. Now or never.
Remainers are now experiencing the same thing in reverse as the boot is on the other foot, and the Leavers in charge go ultra-hard with little concern for how they feel about it.
Both are wrong.
You sure don't act like it - as your tiny track record of posts show.
Civil lawyers are seeking to persuade a different sort of audience. One of the most cutting remarks a judge can make to a civil lawyer is that his speech is a “jury speech” ie stronger on emotions than legal argument.
Many lawyers are very articulate and persuasive and some are actors manque. And being able to persuade, to tell a story, to get people onside and with you is a key part of being a good lawyer and of being a leader. But lawyers’ skills tend to be used in an arena where the boundaries and rules are clear and understood (a courtroom etc) and outside that those skills don’t necessarily translate well. So they can be great in Parliament but not necessarily great outside it.
More is needed to be an effective leader I think. Managing people, for instance. Plus sometimes other attributes which come with being a good lawyer - caution, care with words, calmness and rationality- may hold them back. Politics can be colourful and vivid and brutal and emotional.
Blair didn’t practise much as a lawyer but was an effective politician. Hilary Clinton was a good lawyer but bloody useless as a politician. John Smith was pretty good. Thatcher I think learnt a great deal of her communication skills from her lay preaching when younger rather than her work as a tax barrister.
Hard to generalise but hope this gives you a bit of an answer. I’m sure other legal bods on here will have a view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_border_control_system#Italy
And I had you down as an intelligent poster.
It is not out of the question, in April a Yougov Welsh Assembly poll had it Con 38% Lab 32% Plaid 19% on the constituency vote and Con 37% Lab 29% and Plaid 18% on the regional vote
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/kg4inoaeii/Results_WelshBarometer_April2020_Coronavirus2_W.pdf
District polling is supporting a strong shift to Biden state wise
In 2016 when the state polls showed Clinton leading, the district polling was showing a different picture with Trump winning. Seems the polling as is so localised they picked up the education gap that national and state polling missed.
There's nothing for me to get over. I'm giving you free advice on how to succeed in your long-term objective.
Remember: the EU won't take us back unless there's a national consensus, not a 50:50 split, so all this attitude does is perpetuate a bitter and divided country.
Incels, losers and rejects who need to get a life.
This site truly has gone down the toilet.
I have better things to do with my day. So long, saddos.
The problem is the electoral system The Conservatives can happily have an outright majority in parliament from a minority of voters on a ticket of incompetence, dishonesty and moral turpitude as long as they have more votes than the next biggest bloc , ie Labour. Starmer needs to get more votes than Johnson, either by himself or in coalition.
You're just a sardonic, pompous Remoaner - just like the rest of them.
However if we do get 25-30% of the problems forecast in the early part of 2021, then, as suggested, the Tories lead might slip a bit more.If we get 50-60%, then the Government will be in real trouble. It could happen quite quickly, too.
One thing that a Tory slide will make, contrarily, difficult is Boris' departure. He (and Dom) won't want to depart ignominiously, so if things are going wrong they'll hang open until they are pushed.
And please understand, I'm not trying to provoke you, I'm just concerned. Please stop and have a think about whether your anger levels are healthy.
It does though have Biden ahead in every Pennsylvania district, up by 15% in one and ahead in every district from a Hillary state and also leading in 2 Texas districts to 1 for Trump and in NE02
This may well contribute to a good performance in the narrow context of a court hearing or even PMQs but a government or effective team it does not make.
Which is nice...
2. There is a vast pool of voters who do not vote in the Welsh Assembly elections (over 55 per cent). If the Tories (or Plaid) can get just 15 per cent of them to vote for their party, then they would win.
3. Drakeford (who is not a great communicator and not noticeably competent) was on course to lose, but the Rona came to his help and he is seen in Wales as having had a good pandemic (at least compared to Boris).
I think if his lockdown is seen as not achieving much, and there a few instances of Welsh Government ministers caught not obeying the rules (e.g. travelling to England), and there are a few arrests and fines for ridiculous things, then the gloss could come of his pandemic bounce. It is hard to say who would then benefit -- probably the Don't Vote party.
There is though an interesting fight developing in Cardiff West, between Drakeford and a maverick but popular Welsh politician, Neil McEvoy.
Drakeford's seat is marginal, he has a 3.7 per cent majority -- and he could lose his seat.
I kind of get that they probably get a lot of abuse from people which her actions may encourage, but let's be real, MPs get treated like crap on social media anyway.
In other news, thanks to everyone for educating me about sewing machine manufacturers!
It does though have Biden ahead in every Pennsylvania district, up by 15% in one and every district from a Hillary state and also leading in 2 Texas districts to 1 for Trump and in NE02
Its more the shift from 2016 as districts contribute to the whole state result. If trump wins in a Florida district but by significantly less then he is going to need to make those numbers back in other districts. However it seems the shift is being seen generally towards Biden.
Still time for that to change.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/html/ukregion_20.stm
I agree though tapping non voters would help and if the lockdown really hits the Welsh economy and ministers are seen to be ignoring the voters Welsh Labour could well lose and Drakeford lose his seat, especially as the Tories got 36% at GE19 in Wales so if they held their vote then and Labour lost about a quarter of its 2019 vote of 40% to Plaid as often happens in Assembly elections the Tories would top the poll
SKS
But yes, there are two problems with Starmer's Labour; Corbynism runs deep and hasn't been totally excised, but also Starmer isn't the best cultural fit to bring red wall voters back.
Both the Tory and Labour Party in Wales made the wrong choice of leader. The Labour Party should have chose Eluned Morgan (not Drakeford) and the Tories should have chosen Suzy Davies (not Paul).
It would probably help the Labour Party, if McEvoy took out Drakeford in Cardiff West.
There are, IMO, four categories of nation:
Formal enemies - Iran, NK, probably China
Informal enemies - Russia, Belarus, Argentina, Turkey, some other nations, the UN, EU
Informal Allies - most other nations
Formal allies - most NATO nations, NZ, Australia, Japan and other nations we have trade and defence deals with.
My point is that the EU isn't a formal ally or formal enemy because we haven't got a declaration of either. That leaves them in the middle somewhere and they are behaving like someone scorned so treating them as an informal enemy makes much more sense than either of the ally definitions.
An informal ally would be looking for areas of synergy and minimising disruption, the EU aren't doing that, add in our own fifth columnists within the state and government and treating them as an ally has been our undoing. It has left us unprepared for all of these small issues that we should have resolved a long time ago. The assumption that the EU would treat us as a third nation has been proved wrong time and again and we keep falling into that trap. Third nations have access to e-gates, they get off the shelf trade deals, they get defined state aid rules and post-action arbitration, they don't have their fish stolen from them and they get standard state of origin rules. The EU has very clearly decided the UK isn't an informal ally as Canada or Japan was before they signed a trade deal so we should have reciprocated.
My views on the political values I cherish and which I think this government does not are best set out here:-
- https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/07/21/cultivating-democracy/
- https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/11/political-rights-and-wrongs/
- https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/03/12/amber-warnings-what-might-be-the-signals-that-all-is-not-well-in-a-democracy/.
Brexit has both been done and will never end, because our relations with the continent have always dominated our foreign policy. Why should that ever change.
Politically I am fairly centrist, mostly an Orange booker, but just as Labour has permanently lost some Brexiteers, the Conservatives have lost me for a generation or longer. I voted Conservative in 2010, but won't be doing so again. If a Tory manifesto supported EEA application, I would think about it.
It is very easy to say Track and Trace is rubbish. And so what is your plan?
Anyway I heard both Keir and Lisa speak and Lisa got it better than Keir did. They were both good though, just Nandy was better.