To change the subject completely, I don't think I've been on enough to know which way you are leaning at the coming vote? To me, Leave offers a very romantic opportunity, heart vs. head and all that. Thinking I may just abstain, especially as I have not been a resident these past few years. How about you?
It's amazing how under-rated Major is - he singlehandedly saved Cameron in 2007 when he went on the news to destroy Brown for going to Afghanistan during Con conference. That directly stopped Brown calling a GE and meant Cameron lived to fight another day - and ultimately then became PM. Now he has intervened again at the absolutely crucial moment to save Cameron again.
Agree.
Without Major we would have had Kinnock in 1992 and many of the Thatcher reforms would have been undone.
Without Major the Labour Party would not have reformed and become a party of government again - though Corbyn's elevation shows they've forgotten nothing and learned nothing.
And now that Golum of the Back Benches, the seeker of ideological purity, what ever the political cost, IDS once again pursues principle over power. A long and undistinguished future awaits him - and I half suspect he'll be even happier were he on the Opposition back benches....but thats it with these multi-millionaire LEAVErs - IDS, Johnson, Farage, Boris, they won't have to pay the cost of LEAVE....
Kinnock winning in 1992 would have saved the Tories, who would have returned to power in 1997. That would have spared this country from the disaster of Blair's egotistical Iraq war which destabilised the world. In the long term that will prove the greatest disaster the west has generated since the Crusades.
We saw after 1997 how the Tories reacted to defeat - a decade of infighting, so the chances of them returning to power in 1997 would have been slim to nil.
Do you seriously think Bush would not have gone to war without Blair?
He offered to.
The biggest element of the Tories losing in 1997 was their loss of economic credibility post the ERM departure.
And they were old & tired & sleazy.
It was time to 'give the other lot a go' - I suspect a 1997 Labour government would have been given 'the benefit of the doubt' after their first term - and as we're seeing daily, the Tories capacity for vicious infighting is unequaled....
A government with unproven economic capabilities who'd caused a currency crisis within months of taking office...
Leave or Remain, Cameron's off soon. When he goes, the current Tory MPs will pick two candidates and the Tory membership will choose between them. The referendum result doesn't change this process.
Doesn't change the process, but materially effects who is on the ballot.
Furthermore, this is a debate about our membership of the EU. Is she really saying she recommends we leave if one campaign uses a net figure, but because they used the gross we should stay in?
Perhaps she realised that a campaign that plays so fast and loose with the facts and makes such a misrepresentation as it affects an area where she is an expert, might play fast and loose with other elements and facts.
And perhaps she realised also that these are the people that would be leading an independent UK into its glorious future.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
Leave or Remain, Cameron's off soon. When he goes, the current Tory MPs will pick two candidates and the Tory membership will choose between them. The referendum result doesn't change this process.
Doesn't change the process, but materially effects who is on the ballot.
Boris jumped Leave because that is his only shot.
Because he thought it was his best shot (probably rightly). He could equally have backed Remain and been rewarded with a big cabinet job, in anticipation of following a more establishment route to the top in a 2018/19 leadership contest. It might not have worked out as well for him (I'm not sure he has what it takes to be an A1 minister) but it was a viable route too.
Yvette isn't good enough, cannot command. There isn't a woman that I can think of in Labour who could lead.. and win..
For the Tories.. once Dave has gone, it'll have to be Hammond, or the Tories will be equally fecked.. What price the Lib Dems to come thro' the middle...
Only 15 days (is it) of this interminable referendum, that isn'r even binding.. its turning into a farce.. Is anyone but the diehards listening to the continual stream of lies.
Yvette has nothing about her - too timid to actually campaign for the top job, and has the manner of a humourless primary school teacher. I'd much rather see Angela Eagle - she's good at PMQ stuff and doesn't come across as an empty virtue signaller.
Well, whoever wins the referendum, politics loses.
There are reasonable lies, the ones we are used to, and to some extent, put up with. The gross figure for the EU contributions rather than the nett figure. It's the truth but not all the truth. And there's Sadiq's pledge to freeze tube fares ... "Ah, but that doesn't apply to Oyster cards etc."
Then there are big whoppers, where the response of the guilty politicians is to change the subject and/or to talk over the interviewer. George, we're looking at you, but he's not the only one.
They get away with both sorts because the voters allow it. Supporters will deny it's a lie first. Then they will begin the what-aboutery, "The other lot are far worse." When this fails, there's always the ad-hominem. "The interviewer hates us and is a secret supporter of the other side."
The Establishment will win because they have all the big guns, and it looks more natural for them to lie big-time. They have more practice, and they are the default choice when you can trust no one.
Jezza is unhinged, but he starts to look good when this is going on. Silence really is golden. Unfortunately for the Labour party, he has to resurface sometime.
So McDonnell will be the next leader of the Labour party, and Remain will win narrowly.
Nail. Head. Great post.
@ThreeQuidder what @Scott_P said. Without this campaign, Boris would likely not even have been nominated. He may not make the final two - if the MPs have any sense he won't -but he's given himself a chance, and all Boris cares about is himself as he has proven many times.
Furthermore, this is a debate about our membership of the EU. Is she really saying she recommends we leave if one campaign uses a net figure, but because they used the gross we should stay in?
Perhaps she realised that a campaign that plays so fast and loose with the facts and makes such a misrepresentation as it affects an area where she is an expert, might play fast and loose with other elements and facts.
And perhaps she realised also that these are the people that would be leading an independent UK into its glorious future.
Mr. P, the difference for Gove is that the deal Cameron got bears no resemblance to the one he either claims he achieved or the one he aspired to get.
What has changed in the last week or two justify Wollaston's volte-face?
Mr. Sandpit, clever strategy by Remain. Hopefully the trickle won't become a flood and the defections will lead to a level of success similar to the last couple.
She won an open primary IIRC. She has a bigger mandate than almost any other MP
True, she'll be more difficult than most MPs to deselect.
Oh to be a fly on the wall at some of the selection meetings for all parties over the next couple of years, there's a lot of MPs out there with very different views to their local party membership.
The BBC are describing Woollaston as a "Senior Tory MP". Well she will be when she becomes Health Sec on June 27.
She won't be when she gets deselected.
If all Leavers or Remainers are going to be deselected then there will be a bloodbath, leaving a rump party.
Dr Wollaston seems very popular locally and with a unique mandate from an open primary.
If all Leavers are deselected then that will be fine, the Conservative Party will take on a particular character and current members and supporters will make a call as to what to do.
I, meanwhile, will be forming a cross-party support group with @SouthamObserver.
To me Wollaston took a long hard look into the abyss and the more she looked she didn't like what she saw. Simples.
In her interview with Laura Kuensberg she appears to make that her main reason. Leave can rightly question her motives, but I think it shows her addressing the same dilemma as the undecideds, who might well go, "I can't stand the EU, but now I know, Brexit isn't a responsible thing to do"
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
Given that there's already been plenty of stuff from BSE that is at least as nuts, I can't see why that would be a risk.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Yvette isn't good enough, cannot command. There isn't a woman that I can think of in Labour who could lead.. and win..
For the Tories.. once Dave has gone, it'll have to be Hammond, or the Tories will be equally fecked.. What price the Lib Dems to come thro' the middle...
Only 15 days (is it) of this interminable referendum, that isn'r even binding.. its turning into a farce.. Is anyone but the diehards listening to the continual stream of lies.
Yvette would be better than Corbyn, and better than Burnham would have been. It says a lot about the Labour electorate that they put her behind him. True, she's no Barbara Castle, but she's got more about her than than most on the current front bench.
The Tories do have other options and May is one, but I agree that Hammond is currently the best bet as a unity candidate. He'd also contrast well against Corbyn. Dull is good when faced with risky.
Very little chance that the Lib Dems could come through the middle. They're still deep in shock and being ignored by the media. There's more chance that UKIP could make the leap to the big time, though not with Farage as leader.
Cooper lacks gravitas, she comers across (to me) as a shouty schoolteacher.. Labour need their own version of Mrs T to sort the buggers out, but she hasn't shown her face yet.. Yvette,.... naaah.
Cooper showed clearly during the leadership election that she had little to offer beyond bland managerial more of the sameism. And the selectorate clearly responded that that was not what they wanted. The person that wins the next labour leadership election will be the person that can put together a prospectus that is both radical and deliverable.
Well, whoever wins the referendum, politics loses.
There are reasonable lies, the ones we are used to, and to some extent, put up with. The gross figure for the EU contributions rather than the nett figure. It's the truth but not all the truth. And there's Sadiq's pledge to freeze tube fares ... "Ah, but that doesn't apply to Oyster cards etc."
Then there are big whoppers, where the response of the guilty politicians is to change the subject and/or to talk over the interviewer. George, we're looking at you, but he's not the only one.
They get away with both sorts because the voters allow it. Supporters will deny it's a lie first. Then they will begin the what-aboutery, "The other lot are far worse." When this fails, there's always the ad-hominem. "The interviewer hates us and is a secret supporter of the other side."
The Establishment will win because they have all the big guns, and it looks more natural for them to lie big-time. They have more practice, and they are the default choice when you can trust no one.
Jezza is unhinged, but he starts to look good when this is going on. Silence really is golden. Unfortunately for the Labour party, he has to resurface sometime.
So McDonnell will be the next leader of the Labour party, and Remain will win narrowly.
Nail. Head. Great post.
@ThreeQuidder what @Scott_P said. Without this campaign, Boris would likely not even have been nominated. He may not make the final two - if the MPs have any sense he won't -but he's given himself a chance, and all Boris cares about is himself as he has proven many times.
Do Tory MPs not want to win? Boris remains the country's only Heineken politician.
Yvette isn't good enough, cannot command. There isn't a woman that I can think of in Labour who could lead.. and win..
For the Tories.. once Dave has gone, it'll have to be Hammond, or the Tories will be equally fecked.. What price the Lib Dems to come thro' the middle...
Only 15 days (is it) of this interminable referendum, that isn'r even binding.. its turning into a farce.. Is anyone but the diehards listening to the continual stream of lies.
Yvette would be better than Corbyn, and better than Burnham would have been. It says a lot about the Labour electorate that they put her behind him. True, she's no Barbara Castle, but she's got more about her than than most on the current front bench.
The Tories do have other options and May is one, but I agree that Hammond is currently the best bet as a unity candidate. He'd also contrast well against Corbyn. Dull is good when faced with risky.
Very little chance that the Lib Dems could come through the middle. They're still deep in shock and being ignored by the media. There's more chance that UKIP could make the leap to the big time, though not with Farage as leader.
Cooper lacks gravitas, she comers across (to me) as a shouty schoolteacher.. Labour need their own version of Mrs T to sort the buggers out, but she hasn't shown her face yet.. Yvette,.... naaah.
But *someone* will have to win after 2020, assuming that Labour loses - which is likely if the far left remain in control, whether under Corbyn or MacDonnell. Sure, she's not great but who is? Some have shown promise but there's no ready-made leader in waiting (not that Thatcher was when she won in 1975).
They get away with both sorts because the voters allow it. Supporters will deny it's a lie first. Then they will begin the what-aboutery, "The other lot are far worse." When this fails, there's always the ad-hominem. "The interviewer hates us and is a secret supporter of the other side
I think that hits the nail on the head quite well. It's impossible to be a loyal party supporter and not end up having to defend such things and some point in just such ways, and the public kept them get away with it. I always laugh when people get really cross at broken or reversed manifesto commitments, because while it is indeed infuriating when a party goes back on the programme they sold to us, if you're not a first time voter you know and accept parties go back on manifestos all the time. By all means be angry at the specifics, but fact is whike the voters do punish a few things, they accept u turns, failures or lies quite a bit.
I remember those in late 2014 who said the Tories were finished because of two defections to UKIP in succession, and everyone waiting on tenterhooks to see who'd be next.
Well, whoever wins the referendum, politics loses.
There are reasonable lies, the ones we are used to, and to some extent, put up with. The gross figure for the EU contributions rather than the nett figure. It's the truth but not all the truth. And there's Sadiq's pledge to freeze tube fares ... "Ah, but that doesn't apply to Oyster cards etc."
Then there are big whoppers, where the response of the guilty politicians is to change the subject and/or to talk over the interviewer. George, we're looking at you, but he's not the only one.
They get away with both sorts because the voters allow it. Supporters will deny it's a lie first. Then they will begin the what-aboutery, "The other lot are far worse." When this fails, there's always the ad-hominem. "The interviewer hates us and is a secret supporter of the other side."
The Establishment will win because they have all the big guns, and it looks more natural for them to lie big-time. They have more practice, and they are the default choice when you can trust no one.
Jezza is unhinged, but he starts to look good when this is going on. Silence really is golden. Unfortunately for the Labour party, he has to resurface sometime.
So McDonnell will be the next leader of the Labour party, and Remain will win narrowly.
Nail. Head. Great post.
@ThreeQuidder what @Scott_P said. Without this campaign, Boris would likely not even have been nominated. He may not make the final two - if the MPs have any sense he won't -but he's given himself a chance, and all Boris cares about is himself as he has proven many times.
Do Tory MPs not want to win? Boris remains the country's only Heineken politician.
Which is my point. That's what he's trying to demonstrate with Leave. He should get a close result which will help.
However, it is not only the next election but the one after, which will be about stable and effective government. Would Boris provide that? Probably not. And a Heineken only lasts so long before you want a meal. Whether another candidate can provide that is the question but I think most Tories will conclude Boris certainly won't.
She won an open primary IIRC. She has a bigger mandate than almost any other MP
True, she'll be more difficult than most MPs to deselect.
Oh to be a fly on the wall at some of the selection meetings for all parties over the next couple of years, there's a lot of MPs out there with very different views to their local party membership.
As the campaign started, I was YouGov'd about whether I'd want to deselect an MP if they didn't share my views.
I said No, however if they'd mislead us into getting their vote - then I wouldn't back them again.
I can see several MPs falling into this category over the EU. My MP waited until the last minute to declare for Leave - she didn't make the EU part of her selection bid either way.
RE: judicially reviewing voter registration extension. Are VoteLeave actually saying that they don't support the maximum possible turnout? A bit of a break from convention as normally all sides in a campaign will always urge everyone to use their vote, even when they suspect it may not help their electoral chances.
Mr. P, the difference for Gove is that the deal Cameron got bears no resemblance to the one he either claims he achieved or the one he aspired to get.
What has changed in the last week or two justify Wollaston's volte-face?
Mr. Sandpit, clever strategy by Remain. Hopefully the trickle won't become a flood and the defections will lead to a level of success similar to the last couple.
What has changed in the four days since she wrote an article in support of Brexit? Either she didn't believe what she was saying then, or she doesn't believe what she's saying now.
RE: judicially reviewing voter registration extension. Are VoteLeave actually saying that they don't support the maximum possible turnout? A bit of a break from convention as normally all sides in a campaign will always urge everyone to use their vote, even when they suspect it may not help their electoral chances.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
Well, whoever wins the referendum, politics loses.
There are reasonable lies, the ones we are used to, and to some extent, put up with. The gross figure for the EU contributions rather than the nett figure. It's the truth but not all the truth. And there's Sadiq's pledge to freeze tube fares ... "Ah, but that doesn't apply to Oyster cards etc."
Then there are big whoppers, where the response of the guilty politicians is to change the subject and/or to talk over the interviewer. George, we're looking at you, but he's not the only one.
They get away with both sorts because the voters allow it. Supporters will deny it's a lie first. Then they will begin the what-aboutery, "The other lot are far worse." When this fails, there's always the ad-hominem. "The interviewer hates us and is a secret supporter of the other side."
The Establishment will win because they have all the big guns, and it looks more natural for them to lie big-time. They have more practice, and they are the default choice when you can trust no one.
Jezza is unhinged, but he starts to look good when this is going on. Silence really is golden. Unfortunately for the Labour party, he has to resurface sometime.
So McDonnell will be the next leader of the Labour party, and Remain will win narrowly.
What is interesting is not that pb-ers applauded these tactics -- terminological inexactitudes and plain abuse -- when deployed against Labour but that for the most part they probably did not even notice. It is the same with both left and right being convinced the BBC is biased against them: stuff you agree with is common sense and you do not even notice it; stuff you disagree with proves the BBC's Conservative politics presenters are Labour stooges, or something.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
She won an open primary IIRC. She has a bigger mandate than almost any other MP
True, she'll be more difficult than most MPs to deselect.
Oh to be a fly on the wall at some of the selection meetings for all parties over the next couple of years, there's a lot of MPs out there with very different views to their local party membership.
As the campaign started, I was YouGov'd about whether I'd want to deselect an MP if they didn't share my views.
I said No, however if they'd mislead us into getting their vote - then I wouldn't back them again.
I can see several MPs falling into this category over the EU. My MP waited until the last minute to declare for Leave - she didn't make the EU part of her selection bid either way.
Most will be fine. There will be a handful who said one thing to their selection committees, while saying another thing now, who will be in trouble.
Woollaston needs to appear on the Daily Politics to let a proper journo interrogate her decision - not just that nice person that spoke to her on BBC Breakfast.
On topic, I have very little feel for internal Labour Party politics but I do agree that the 2010/2015 intake of female MPs are amongst the most impressive.
The real question for them is can they find a candidate that appeals both to the membership, and also reaches out to their disillusioned traditional WWC base?
They also need to be comfortable with the concept of nations, IMHO, as Tristham Hunt has pointed out.
Is she saying she didn't know the true numbers two months ago when she made her decision ? For an MP in her position that's unforgivable.
Alternatively, is she saying, she doesn't want people to vote leave under false information? If so she should tell the truth about the numbers, but it wouldn't impact her decision to leave.
The only reason to change position at this stage for an mp is if new material facts have come to light which would have influenced her original decision. They haven't, so we're left with she didn't think through her position properly in the first place or she's been bought off.
I think the bedfellow factor does influence MPs. The Leave campaign is predominantly insurrectionary in style. Boris, Farage, and others set the tone (I'd exempt the much more measured Gove), light on detail, heavy on throw the rascals out. The £350m claim is not especially unusual in terms of political distortion - I can think of others on both sides in GEs which were worse - but the suggestion that all this lovely but largely non-existent money could, indeed will, be used to help the NHS is reckless populism. Sarah W's self-image is, I think, a serious establishment politician who considers issues on their merits, and my guess is that she just felt increasingly that she was part of a disreputable campaign.
In principle, that shouldn't affect the larger question of whether we're better in or out. But her original Leave decision was a bit of a surprise and I suspect she's always felt it was a close decision.
The only public item I can remember about Wollaston, when she was with Leave, was her disquiet about the £350million. This seems a strange point to fixate on, given the nonsense on both sides.
In hindsight, she seems to have been preparing this supposed 'switch' for some time. I don't find her reasons credible.
The biggest loser in the Woollaston affair is Woollaston herself.
She set her stall out on principles and now she just looks a flip flopper. Anyone discussing things with her now will walk out the door and wonder if they have an agreement that holds.
Post 23 June I think her problems will begin. She's made herself fair game for the press - from saint to sinner - and quite how things will pan out in her constituency who knows. She has a thumping great majority based on the LD collapse, but things are different now and she will have offended a lot of her local party in the eurosceptic south west.
The Labour party cannot call itself a progressive party of the 21st Century without having elected a woman leader
The so called 'Progessive Parties' have been very conservative when it comes to female leaders - the SNP only managed one 18 months ago - nearly a decade after the Scottish Tories and nearly four decades after the UK Tories. Progressive my eye!
The Scottish sub regional office had only a few odds and sods to be selected from , SNP being a real political party had many people with talent to choose from, rather than London picking the donkey they thought was best for their far flung outpost.
I only public item I can remember about Wollaston, when she was with Leave, was her disquiet about the £350million. This seems a strange point to fixate on, given the nonsense on both sides.
In hindsight, she seems to have been preparing this supposed 'switch' for some time. I don't find her reasons credible.
The problem with that level of mud is some of it will stick whether right or wrong. She's now slipped from MP of principle to the same as the rest of them.
Redwood on the radio saying how he would like to spend more money on the health service.
If I had the energy I would google "John Redwood" and "NHS".
Ian Griffiths @IanApGlyndwr 3m3 minutes ago @MichaelWhite the chances of John Redwood spending more of the 'net" contribution on health? Maybe he meant shares in health insurance co.
This argument about the £350m is bogus and I really don't understand why Leave did this to themselves. The point is quite compelling without the difference. £350m a week may be the gross figure but it is not what we pay. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that the rebate is not guaranteed but the fact is at present we do get it.
It is also true that much of the money we get back from the EU is tied to specific spending programs, often with additional financial commitments on the part of the government as well, so in respect of that money we would have greater freedom to spend it in ways the government of this country thought more appropriate. But this does not apply to the rebate. The rebate money is ours to spend how we like. It can even be spent on pro EU propaganda if that is how the government of the day choses to waste it.
It has been a strategic error by Leave to make this claim and it has obscured the £280m a week that we do indeed send to Europe. Why this makes someone change sides at this point is beyond my comprehension but it was a stupid claim to base their campaign on.
Edited because I have screwed up cutting previous contributions.
David, she was just looking for any feeble excuse.
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
Javid, Woolaston, isnt it funny how George gets people to fall on their own swords but never seems to do it himself :-)
Plenty of private switchers out there I'd bet, ones not contributing much to the campaign they nominally support. Inviting ridicule by being open about it I can respect, she's at least justifying an embarrassing u turn. Not very convincingly, if not as preposterously as it seemed at first glance, but she's had the balls to do it and her electors can judge if they accept that.
Wollaston changing sides is a farce. She seems to be saying she didn't make an informed decision on the facts at the start. For a member of the public that's fine, for an mp it's utterly unforgivable.
No, she's switched because she says LEAVE are telling lies about the NHS:
Dr Wollaston, chairman of the health select committee, said Vote Leave's claim that Brexit would free up £350m a week for the NHS "simply isn't true"......"For someone like me who has long campaigned for open and honest data in public life I could not have set foot on a battle bus that has at the heart of its campaign a figure that I know to be untrue."
Its one thing criticising that aspect of the leave campaign - although she has left it very late to do so - its another thing to decide because of one aspect of the leave campaign that the EU is wonderful after all, after having been denouncing it for months.
Put yourself in her shoes.
GP, strong supporter of the NHS, Chair of the Health Select Committee.
The Campaign you support is, you believe, telling lies about the NHS.
What would you do?
As a Tory , she lies through her teeth and changes sides. The bonus will come later.
Leave clearly upset and sore this morning. Need to get a grip.
Great stuff. Have Carswell or reckless also started bitchin about her supposed treachery? Sticking with £350m as opposed to a still large but safer number looks even worse now.
This argument about the £350m is bogus and I really don't understand why Leave did this to themselves. The point is quite compelling without the difference. £350m a week may be the gross figure but it is not what we pay. It is perfectly legitimate to point out that the rebate is not guaranteed but the fact is at present we do get it.
It is also true that much of the money we get back from the EU is tied to specific spending programs, often with additional financial commitments on the part of the government as well, so in respect of that money we would have greater freedom to spend it in ways the government of this country thought more appropriate. But this does not apply to the rebate. The rebate money is ours to spend how we like. It can even be spent on pro EU propaganda if that is how the government of the day choses to waste it.
It has been a strategic error by Leave to make this claim and it has obscured the £280m a week that we do indeed send to Europe. Why this makes someone change sides at this point is beyond my comprehension but it was a stupid claim to base their campaign on.
Edited because I have screwed up cutting previous contributions.
David, she was just looking for any feeble excuse.
As it happens, she makes a reasonable case for Remain on her blog. It's just that four days ago, she made a strong case for Leave in the Dartmouth Chronicle.
I'm not sure what has fundamentally changed overnight to justify Remain moving from 1.36 to 1.32. If like me you think this is fluff and will be forgotten in a couple of days, today might well be a good time for those who wish to back Leave to pick their moment to do so.
Wollaston changing sides is a farce. She seems to be saying she didn't make an informed decision on the facts at the start. For a member of the public that's fine, for an mp it's utterly unforgivable.
No, she's switched because she says LEAVE are telling lies about the NHS:
Dr Wollaston, chairman of the health select committee, said Vote Leave's claim that Brexit would free up £350m a week for the NHS "simply isn't true"......"For someone like me who has long campaigned for open and honest data in public life I could not have set foot on a battle bus that has at the heart of its campaign a figure that I know to be untrue."
Its one thing criticising that aspect of the leave campaign - although she has left it very late to do so - its another thing to decide because of one aspect of the leave campaign that the EU is wonderful after all, after having been denouncing it for months.
Put yourself in her shoes.
GP, strong supporter of the NHS, Chair of the Health Select Committee.
The Campaign you support is, you believe, telling lies about the NHS.
What would you do?
As a Tory , she lies through her teeth and changes sides. The bonus will come later.
LOL, quite so malc she has made herself fair game for the tabloids.
Plenty of private switchers out there I'd bet, ones not contributing much to the campaign they nominally support. Inviting ridicule by being open about it I can respect, she's at least justifying an embarrassing u turn. Not very convincingly, if not as preposterously as it seemed at first glance, but she's had the balls to do it and her electors can judge if they accept that.
That's a fair point. For whatever reason, she's decided enough is enough, and very publicly switched sides. It's actually a very brave decision, given the current atmosphere.
No, Labour are more likely to follow in Obama's footsteps and pick an ethnic minority leader after the 2020 election than a woman, probably Chuka Umunna or Sadiq Khan. The fact Hillary is less electable than Obama only reinforces that and their memories of Britain's first female PM Margaret Thatcher are not good and Cooper's third place showing in the last leadership election shows feminism is not rife in today's Labour Party
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
There are only two kinds of voters - those who adore Boris & Nigel on the one hand and treacherous lefty intellectual scum on the other. Close down all the universities and burn all their graduates alive alive-o!!
There are only two kinds of voters - those who adore Boris & Nigel on the one hand and treacherous lefty intellectual scum on the other. Close down all the universities and burn all their graduates alive alive-o!!
On topic, Labour would do well to pick the best candidate based on the contents of his or her character. If they want a female leader, then they need to select and promote women with the skills needed for the post. Unless they excel on the front bench in their shadow role, there is no point promoting them higher just to tick a 'been there, done that' box.
Yes - I think members don't in general think in terms of gender or race when choosing - Khan wasn't selected because he was a Muslim but because he was mildly leftish and competent, over Jowell who was mildly rightish (in Labour terms) but competent. The example of Thatcher (who, whatever some here think, is not seen as a role model by Labour members) reminds members of the limits of a female=good meme.
Fox's analysis looks right to me. Creasy is IMO the most charismatic of the names mentioned and could win if she caught the party in pragmatic mood. Nandy could win on a "mildly left but little baggage" ticket, like Khan. I can't see anyone from the former top tier making it.
This really is the most persuasive argument to vote Remain I have seen
@NadineDorriesMP: If the people #VoteLeave on June 23rd, we have clever men to renegotiate our terms with Europe. Raab Redwood Lilley Davis Cash Gove
Genius!
Rafeal Behr (Guardian): "Gove, Johnson, Farage and the rest are lighting a fire on the off-chance that a phoenix will rise from the ashes, while safe in the knowledge that it won’t be their livelihoods going up in smoke."
Leave clearly upset and sore this morning. Need to get a grip.
Great stuff. Have Carswell or reckless also started bitchin about her supposed treachery? Sticking with £350m as opposed to a still large but safer number looks even worse now.
I would do a thread praising Dr Wollaston's defection as a fine principled move by an honourable patriotic lioness but I fear the irony black hole would be so large it would cause the universe collapses in on itself.
To change the subject completely, I don't think I've been on enough to know which way you are leaning at the coming vote? To me, Leave offers a very romantic opportunity, heart vs. head and all that. Thinking I may just abstain, especially as I have not been a resident these past few years. How about you?
It's amazing how under-rated Major is - he singlehandedly saved Cameron in 2007 when he went on the news to destroy Brown for going to Afghanistan during Con conference. That directly stopped Brown calling a GE and meant Cameron lived to fight another day - and ultimately then became PM. Now he has intervened again at the absolutely crucial moment to save Cameron again.
Agree.
Without Major we would have had Kinnock in 1992 and many of the Thatcher reforms would have been undone.
Without Major the Labour Party would not have reformed and become a party of government again - though Corbyn's elevation shows they've forgotten nothing and learned nothing.
And now that Golum of the Back Benches, the seeker of ideological purity, what ever the political cost, IDS once again pursues principle over power. A long and undistinguished future awaits him - and I half suspect he'll be even happier were he on the Opposition back benches....but thats it with these multi-millionaire LEAVErs - IDS, Johnson, Farage, Boris, they won't have to pay the cost of LEAVE....
Kinnock winning in 1992 would have saved the Tories, who would have returned to power in 1997. That would have spared this country from the disaster of Blair's egotistical Iraq war which destabilised the world. In the long term that will prove the greatest disaster the west has generated since the Crusades.
Kinnock winning in 1992 would have led to Heseltine perhaps winning in 1997 and then Blair maybe beating him in 2001 so we could well have ended up with Blair and the Iraq War anyway but an economically terrible Kinnock government and a Europhile Heseltine Tory government too
Plenty of private switchers out there I'd bet, ones not contributing much to the campaign they nominally support. Inviting ridicule by being open about it I can respect, she's at least justifying an embarrassing u turn. Not very convincingly, if not as preposterously as it seemed at first glance, but she's had the balls to do it and her electors can judge if they accept that.
That's a fair point. For whatever reason, she's decided enough is enough, and very publicly switched sides. It's actually a very brave decision, given the current atmosphere.
She won an open primary IIRC. She has a bigger mandate than almost any other MP
True, she'll be more difficult than most MPs to deselect.
Oh to be a fly on the wall at some of the selection meetings for all parties over the next couple of years, there's a lot of MPs out there with very different views to their local party membership.
As the campaign started, I was YouGov'd about whether I'd want to deselect an MP if they didn't share my views.
I said No, however if they'd mislead us into getting their vote - then I wouldn't back them again.
I can see several MPs falling into this category over the EU. My MP waited until the last minute to declare for Leave - she didn't make the EU part of her selection bid either way.
Interesting, our new MP (Tory) struck me as a complete loyalist and I was surprised that she backed Leave, also quite late. Maybe it's under pressure from the local association.
On topic, Labour would do well to pick the best candidate based on the contents of his or her character. If they want a female leader, then they need to select and promote women with the skills needed for the post. Unless they excel on the front bench in their shadow role, there is no point promoting them higher just to tick a 'been there, done that' box.
Yes - I think members don't in general think in terms of gender or race when choosing - Khan wasn't selected because he was a Muslim but because he was mildly leftish and competent, over Jowell who was mildly rightish (in Labour terms) but competent. The example of Thatcher (who, whatever some here think, is not seen as a role model by Labour members) reminds members of the limits of a female=good meme.
Fox's analysis looks right to me. Creasy is IMO the most charismatic of the names mentioned and could win if she caught the party in pragmatic mood. Nandy could win on a "mildly left but little baggage" ticket, like Khan. I can't see anyone from the former top tier making it.
It is also worth considering how Thatcher actually became leader. It certainly wasn't by a mass acclamation of MPs and wider membership.
This really is the most persuasive argument to vote Remain I have seen
@NadineDorriesMP: If the people #VoteLeave on June 23rd, we have clever men to renegotiate our terms with Europe. Raab Redwood Lilley Davis Cash Gove
Genius!
Rafeal Behr (Guardian): "Gove, Johnson, Farage and the rest are lighting a fire on the off-chance that a phoenix will rise from the ashes, while safe in the knowledge that it won’t be their livelihoods going up in smoke."
It's odd. The 350 million part is quoted as part of the reason, but you're right she does talk about th economic hit and other matters, the arguments for which have not really changed so why did it not convince her before.
Like many people who don't find themselves at either pole of the ideological argument, I suspect she felt at the start that the balance was narrowly to one side, only to be put off by nonsense arguments which emerged as the campaign got entrenched. The only danger is she's forced back by something equally nuts from the other side in the next ten days.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
The most egregious error by both sides is to make ridiculous, hyperbolic claims that surely must make most of each side's supporters cringe.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
Hard to disagree with that, Topping.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
As pointed out, much of her reasoning in the Laura k piece was in fact to do with her, at the finishing line, hesitating due to economic considerations and emotional reasons to stay. It wasn't just the leave campaign which swayed her. I'm very surprised she felt swayed by standards remain claims so late, but her hesitation makes more sense p. Asyou say, switching rather than merely disavowing the leave campaign makes no sense if only about the NHS claim from the campaign.
That begs the question as to why she wrote a strong article for Brexit only on Sunday.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Yes it was, although being stage managed doesn't make it not genuine of course, but you're right her previous sentiments are relevant. No one wants to admit too much hesitance, but she could have been less strident for leave if she was wavering at a fundamental level. It does beg many questions.
As it is I shall watch my MP dr Murrison with interest. Self described Government loyalist, surgeon, who did say the 350 million claim was potentially misleading, but seems to be sticking with leave.
There are only two kinds of voters - those who adore Boris & Nigel on the one hand and treacherous lefty intellectual scum on the other. Close down all the universities and burn all their graduates alive alive-o!!
Comments
http://order-order.com/2016/06/09/wollaston-britons-better-off-brexit/
Boris jumped Leave because that is his only shot.
And perhaps she realised also that these are the people that would be leading an independent UK into its glorious future.
And thought: nah.
In an age where we apparently like our politicians' positions to be defined in fewer words than a Sun headline, she may suffer for a more nuanced approach. But on this issue, I suspect most many people will have some sympathy that she's been put off by the 'there be dragons' nature of the discussion.
Dr Wollaston seems very popular locally and with a unique mandate from an open primary.
@ThreeQuidder what @Scott_P said. Without this campaign, Boris would likely not even have been nominated. He may not make the final two - if the MPs have any sense he won't -but he's given himself a chance, and all Boris cares about is himself as he has proven many times.
@DPJHodges: Ah. According to my timeline Wollaston was an EU Lizard Woman all along. A plant.
What has changed in the last week or two justify Wollaston's volte-face?
Mr. Sandpit, clever strategy by Remain. Hopefully the trickle won't become a flood and the defections will lead to a level of success similar to the last couple.
Oh to be a fly on the wall at some of the selection meetings for all parties over the next couple of years, there's a lot of MPs out there with very different views to their local party membership.
I, meanwhile, will be forming a cross-party support group with @SouthamObserver.
That really would be popcorn time.
But perhaps it is in such primary colours that mass-market public campaigns are fought. And hence it is our own fault.
It's her brand.
It could be part of a coordinated approach to undermine Boris's big debate.
Remind me, how did that turn out?
If not senior the word prominent gets used, or influential or veteran.
However, it is not only the next election but the one after, which will be about stable and effective government. Would Boris provide that? Probably not. And a Heineken only lasts so long before you want a meal. Whether another candidate can provide that is the question but I think most Tories will conclude Boris certainly won't.
I said No, however if they'd mislead us into getting their vote - then I wouldn't back them again.
I can see several MPs falling into this category over the EU. My MP waited until the last minute to declare for Leave - she didn't make the EU part of her selection bid either way.
Only thing I'd say is that you make your own mind up on the facts, and then advocate your decision in your own words on your own terms.
You don't switch on a matter of principle just because you don't like how the official campaign might be playing it, unless you were insincere in the first place.
@NadineDorriesMP: If the people #VoteLeave on June 23rd, we have clever men to renegotiate our terms with Europe. Raab Redwood Lilley Davis Cash Gove
The real question for them is can they find a candidate that appeals both to the membership, and also reaches out to their disillusioned traditional WWC base?
They also need to be comfortable with the concept of nations, IMHO, as Tristham Hunt has pointed out.
Assuming Labour want to win, of course.
In principle, that shouldn't affect the larger question of whether we're better in or out. But her original Leave decision was a bit of a surprise and I suspect she's always felt it was a close decision.
The only public item I can remember about Wollaston, when she was with Leave, was her disquiet about the £350million. This seems a strange point to fixate on, given the nonsense on both sides.
In hindsight, she seems to have been preparing this supposed 'switch' for some time. I don't find her reasons credible.
She set her stall out on principles and now she just looks a flip flopper. Anyone discussing things with her now will walk out the door and wonder if they have an agreement that holds.
Post 23 June I think her problems will begin. She's made herself fair game for the press - from saint to sinner - and quite how things will pan out in her constituency who knows. She has a thumping great majority based on the LD collapse, but things are different now and she will have offended a lot of her local party in the eurosceptic south west.
Could be a PB runner for the next 3 years.
If I had the energy I would google "John Redwood" and "NHS".
@MichaelWhite the chances of John Redwood spending more of the 'net" contribution on health? Maybe he meant shares in health insurance co.
The opposition must think Christmas has come early.
Was she disingenuous? Or has she changed her mind suddenly within 72 hours?
Something doesn't smell right. If I had to call it, I'd say it was a combination of being ignored by Vote Leave (possible including Cummings charm) her not being massively bothered either way from the start, a week or two of encouragement from Remain off the back of her critique, and wanting to make a statement.
This was very well timed.
Fox's analysis looks right to me. Creasy is IMO the most charismatic of the names mentioned and could win if she caught the party in pragmatic mood. Nandy could win on a "mildly left but little baggage" ticket, like Khan. I can't see anyone from the former top tier making it.
As it is I shall watch my MP dr Murrison with interest. Self described Government loyalist, surgeon, who did say the 350 million claim was potentially misleading, but seems to be sticking with leave.