Oh dear. Is it time for the Johann Hari jokes to resurface? Except this time it's somewhat more serious, we're talking about someone who wants to be Prime Minister.
I expect Chilott will provide little but re-enforce the views which people have already formed over Iraq.
Good morning all.
Yesterday @DaemonBarber posted a link to an excellent essay which delineated an old phenomenon that the Internet has amplified and exacerbated.
If we wish, we can all live in a partisan bubble in which we only see content our allies post, where we only post an opposition line to ridicule it thus winning credit with our confreres, and we neither converse or discuss, we merely reinforce our own biases and prejudices.
Chilcott will not change minds, of that I'm convinced.
Thought on Leadsom: she is supposedly a Christian as far as I'm aware. How does sexing up your CV square with the injunction "thou shalt not bear false witness"?
"Lindsey German, the coalition’s convenor, says that regardless of what Chilcot says, she believes Tony Blair lied." [Guardian blog]
Stop the War was set up 3 days after 9/11. They were against any war regardless. Their opposition had nothing to do with the evidence and they therefore deserve no credit for being right about something which played no part in their thinking. Not that that will stop them or their more credulous supporters.
Stephen Pollard As usual, Vernon Bogdanor gets to the heart of things https://t.co/vVUQoqBHp3
In one sense yes, he does. But he fails to mention that nobody had any idea what ticking the 'Leave the EU' box entailed. And we still don't. Unfortunately it means different things to different people. It seems large numbers felt it meant an end to migration, which it doesn't.
It may mean an end to free movement of people from EU and I am coming around to viewing that failing to negotiate that at least out of the EU will be seen as a betrayal. However, FoM may well fall apart as an idea across Europe anyway as we play for time over the negotiations.
No, ICM on Sunday had only 28% with immigration as the main priority for the next PM compared to over 60% for the economy. If you add together the 48% who voted Remain and some liberal Leave voters who backed F of M but opposed many of the EU directives and regulations you get a clear majority across the country for F of M even if a small majority of Leave voters opposed it
When the economy appears to be strong people will tend to focus on immigration. When the economy appears to be weak people will tend to focus on the economy.
Thought on Leadsom: she is supposedly a Christian as far as I'm aware. How does sexing up your CV square with the injunction "thou shalt not bear false witness"?
"The main expectation that I have is that it will not be possible in future to engage in a military or indeed a diplomatic endeavour on such a scale and of such gravity without really careful challenge analysis and assessment and collective political judgment being applied to it.
There are many lessons in the report but that probably is the central one for the future." [My bold]
Note his comment about diplomatic endeavour. This has implication for a PM triggering Article 50 "without really careful challenge analysis and assessment and collective political judgment being applied to it."
Yes. How many years of this did we have to endure on here? Presumably the brexiteers who once preached fiscal conservatism will immediately condemn it?
Yes. How many years of this did we have to endure on here? Presumably the brexiteers who once preached fiscal conservatism will immediately condemn it?
It is disgraceful. However he seems just to be saying we cannot forecast what it will be, not that it is an acceptable position long term.
And for those Brexiteers still whining that Reaminers should have had a plan to clean up their shit...
This is pure sophistry. There is no conceivable form of Brexit that will simultaneously avoid a UK recession, is acceptable to Leave voters and, be agreed by every one of the 27 EU nations in possession of a veto – there’s just no way of making those three circles of the Venn diagram overlap. That’s one of the reasons Remainers thought that Brexit wasn’t such a great idea.
Had the Government come up with plan it would have either guaranteed that the economy was plunged into a recession, angered the vast majority of those who voted to leave the EU or been instantly laughed out of Brussels. Either way, Leavers – who have bundled up their paradoxes into a big, unsolvable mess and hospital-passed it to the Government – would have placed the blame on the doorstep of Number 10. So, no, of course there isn’t a plan nor can there be one until this country holds a general election and the parties lay out their visions for Brexit.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
Absolutely desperate stuff, I can't believe you mean half the things you post on here.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
She is in a majority then, 52% voted to leave, they ignored party lines.
You are utterly incapable of doing so.
You want a PM for BREXIT - I want a PM for the UK and leader of the Conservative Party.
I feel this is the killer point. The EU directly affects around 15% of our economy and 10% of our workforce.
Brexit will need a full-on department to handle it. The UK PM is the principal, she would be used sparingly and only when necessary. The PM runs the country.
Leadsom is too inexperienced to do the job. Maybe in five years. Not now.
Yes. How many years of this did we have to endure on here? Presumably the brexiteers who once preached fiscal conservatism will immediately condemn it?
I see it is proposed by that well known careerist Brexiteer Sajid Javid.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
Absolutely desperate stuff, I can't believe you mean half the things you post on here.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
Could opponents of Leadsom at least stick to a consistent line of attack, in order to make life easy for observers of Conservative Party political life. Is it: 1. That she has never really believed in Brexit or 2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
Or 3. That her CV is being exposed as somewhat overstated, she's not as experienced a leader as she's made herself out to be.
And, a cynic might think, that she chose Brexit because she thought it a good career move. One way of getting attention - as we have seen - but she did not apparently realise that the attention would not just be on the things she wanted. Poor judgment is not what is needed in a PM.
And a cynic might also think that Theresa May chose Remain because she thought it a good career move. Only she didn't actually campaign for it, just in case Leave won. And she let it be known that she didn't really like the EU all that much, just in case, you know...
I think all of the PM candidates are awful in their own way.
And a cynic might also think that Theresa May chose Remain because she thought it a good career move. Only she didn't actually campaign for it, just in case Leave won. And she let it be known that she didn't really like the EU all that much, just in case, you know...
I think all of the PM candidates are awful in their own way.
Indeed. The strange thing is you would expect remain leaning Tories to be furious with her for not joining the campaign in anger and possibly winning the day for them, but bizarrely they appear to be lining up to kiss her ass instead. Funny old world.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
Absolutely desperate stuff, I can't believe you mean half the things you post on here.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
Could opponents of Leadsom at least stick to a consistent line of attack, in order to make life easy for observers of Conservative Party political life. Is it: 1. That she has never really believed in Brexit or 2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
Or 3. That her CV is being exposed as somewhat overstated, she's not as experienced a leader as she's made herself out to be.
And, a cynic might think, that she chose Brexit because she thought it a good career move. One way of getting attention - as we have seen - but she did not apparently realise that the attention would not just be on the things she wanted. Poor judgment is not what is needed in a PM.
And a cynic might also think that Theresa May chose Remain because she thought it a good career move. Only she didn't actually campaign for it, just in case Leave won. And she let it be known that she didn't really like the EU all that much, just in case, you know...
I think all of the PM candidates are awful in their own way.
Emigration is beginning to look like the best option!
The Times claims Leadsom has no experience as an investment banker because she didn't manage money. Investment bankers don't manage money. They sort out things like mergers and IPOs. The Times, supposedly the paper of big business, does not know the difference between investment banking and investment management. What a joke of a newspaper.
TBH, The Times is still in Remain campaigning mode. I'm looking forward to them regaining their balance.
Danny Fink has penned the most risible article today - he's produced a few thin contributions in succession, but he's really scraping the barrel this morning.
Isn't Danny one of Osborne's close friends.. ?
I don't know. He's just been such a suck up during the campaign. I get being loyal, but he's jumped the shark today.
This whole referendum has created some strange bedfellows and stirred even odder passions for the unloved EU.
There was a good story about Osborne attending the Labour Party conference as one of two representatives of the Conservative party in the very early years of Blair. Having heard him speak Osborne was gutted and said we are never going to beat this man, he gives us nowhere to go. The other representative who agreed with this assessment (which of course proved spot on) was his close friend Danny the Fink.
Yet, in the end, what did Blair amount to? A Prime Minister for good times, who (Iraq excepted) ducked hard decisions, and may well have killed his own party in the long run.
He will rightly be remembered for making the wrong call on Iraq, but I challenge whether prime ministers need to "amount to anything". I would settle for competence, which excepting the Iraq fiasco Blair had.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
Absolutely desperate stuff, I can't believe you mean half the things you post on here.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
Could opponents of Leadsom at least stick to a consistent line of attack, in order to make life easy for observers of Conservative Party political life. Is it: 1. That she has never really believed in Brexit or 2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
Or 3. That her CV is being exposed as somewhat overstated, she's not as experienced a leader as she's made herself out to be.
And, a cynic might think, that she chose Brexit because she thought it a good career move. One way of getting attention - as we have seen - but she did not apparently realise that the attention would not just be on the things she wanted. Poor judgment is not what is needed in a PM.
And a cynic might also think that Theresa May chose Remain because she thought it a good career move. Only she didn't actually campaign for it, just in case Leave won. And she let it be known that she didn't really like the EU all that much, just in case, you know...
I think all of the PM candidates are awful in their own way.
Emigration is beginning to look like the best option!
Good we can replace you with a skilled indian migrant without it impacting on the net migration figures.
So it appears that Leadsom massaged her CV for some Tory MP votes ....
It could have been so much worse, she might have massaged Eric Pickles and Nicholas Soames for their support !!
What a horrible mind you have. That's like something from an especially grim episode of A Game of Thrones.
A Shame of Soames...
The scene opens with Andrea Leadsom being led in chains into a dungeon. Her captor is mocking her with the words "Confess, confess.". Then, she stares in horror, as Nicholas Soames and Eric Pickles begin to disrobe. "Massage us darling" says, Soames, an evil grin lighting up his face, a bottle of baby oil in his hand. She looks around wildly, but there is no escape from this horror. The scene ends with her screaming "No, no!" as her captor exits laughing.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
Absolutely desperate stuff, I can't believe you mean half the things you post on here.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
Could opponents of Leadsom at least stick to a consistent line of attack, in order to make life easy for observers of Conservative Party political life. Is it: 1. That she has never really believed in Brexit or 2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
Or 3. That her CV is being exposed as somewhat overstated, she's not as experienced a leader as she's made herself out to be.
And, a cynic might think, that she chose Brexit because she thought it a good career move. One way of getting attention - as we have seen - but she did not apparently realise that the attention would not just be on the things she wanted. Poor judgment is not what is needed in a PM.
And a cynic might also think that Theresa May chose Remain because she thought it a good career move. Only she didn't actually campaign for it, just in case Leave won. And she let it be known that she didn't really like the EU all that much, just in case, you know...
I think all of the PM candidates are awful in their own way.
So it appears that Leadsom massaged her CV for some Tory MP votes ....
It could have been so much worse, she might have massaged Eric Pickles and Nicholas Soames for their support !!
What a horrible mind you have. That's like something from an especially grim episode of A Game of Thrones.
A Shame of Soames...
The scene opens with Andrea Leadsom being led in chains into a dungeon. Her captor is mocking her with the words "Confess, confess.". Then, she stares in horror, as Nicholas Soames and Eric Pickles begin to disrobe. "Massage us darling" says, Soames, an evil grin lighting up his face, a bottle of baby oil in his hand. She looks around wildly, but there is no escape from this horror. The scene ends with her screaming "No, no!" as her captor exits laughing.
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
When we're out and thriving maybe they'll change their minds... or if the italian banking system collapses first... (also greece is not fixed)
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
Is it any surprise - I think alot of Europe has concluded that the EU isn't perfect but is on balance a positive.
The scene opens with Andrea Leadsom being led in chains into a dungeon. Her captor is mocking her with the words "Confess, confess.". Then, she stares in horror, as Nicholas Soames and Eric Pickles begin to disrobe. "Massage us darling" says, Soames, an evil grin lighting up his face, a bottle of baby oil in his hand. She looks around wildly, but there is no escape from this horror. The scene ends with her screaming "No, no!" as her captor exits laughing.
Ye gods .... what have I unleashed !!
Another PB best selling author - forename Sean ....
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
LOL! It's only been two weeks since the vote. Nobody knows the long-term effects yet, either on us or "rEU"! It just shows how easily some people panic.
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
Is it any surprise - I think alot of Europe has concluded that the EU isn't perfect but is on balance a positive.
I think once we have a plan and the EU continues to ram "more Europe" down everyone's throat that will unwind. Our biggest issue right now is the lack of any kind of contingency plan other than monetary stimulus, once we get a new PM and new plan, a lot of the uncertainty goes away.
And for those Brexiteers still whining that Reaminers should have had a plan to clean up their shit...
This is pure sophistry. There is no conceivable form of Brexit that will simultaneously avoid a UK recession, is acceptable to Leave voters and, be agreed by every one of the 27 EU nations in possession of a veto – there’s just no way of making those three circles of the Venn diagram overlap. That’s one of the reasons Remainers thought that Brexit wasn’t such a great idea.
Had the Government come up with plan it would have either guaranteed that the economy was plunged into a recession, angered the vast majority of those who voted to leave the EU or been instantly laughed out of Brussels. Either way, Leavers – who have bundled up their paradoxes into a big, unsolvable mess and hospital-passed it to the Government – would have placed the blame on the doorstep of Number 10. So, no, of course there isn’t a plan nor can there be one until this country holds a general election and the parties lay out their visions for Brexit.
Um, it is a joke? If you read stuff before retweeting it this site would be much less cluttered. And yes I know it isn't retweeting, technically, and that that is a really, really, really important point.
And a cynic might also think that Theresa May chose Remain because she thought it a good career move. Only she didn't actually campaign for it, just in case Leave won. And she let it be known that she didn't really like the EU all that much, just in case, you know...
I think all of the PM candidates are awful in their own way.
Indeed. The strange thing is you would expect remain leaning Tories to be furious with her for not joining the campaign in anger and possibly winning the day for them, but bizarrely they appear to be lining up to kiss her ass instead. Funny old world.
Let's not forget the reports that May was going to be punished in a reshuffle for not campaigning hard enough. How's that working out?
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
LOL! It's only been two weeks since the vote. Nobody knows the long-term effects yet, either on us or "rEU"! It just shows how easily some people panic.
Do we have any evidence of her actually achieving anything ? Failing to manage immigration, failing to protect our borders adequately, presiding over the shambles that is UK Border Force, failed to handle the London riots, failed to act decisively on Rotherham etc. Whilst being illiberal and authoritarian. Yes, I will grant you she was rude to a few policemen at their conference, but is that really enough ?
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
LOL! It's only been two weeks since the vote. Nobody knows the long-term effects yet, either on us or "rEU"! It just shows how easily some people panic.
@Topping (a remainer) made the obvious point. Brexit, as compared to 24/7 news cycles and the Twittersphere, will take place over geological time periods.
If you reflect a little, nothing substantive has actually happened vice the economy: we're still in the EU, still in the Single Market, yet to invoke article 50. The markets are reacting to an uncertain future, not a completely unchanged present.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
It depends on what sort of party it is. I don't sense there is a mood for SDP2, looking towards the centre and the LibDems. You're right that this wouldn't pull many members and would need to bring in another slice of people new to politics.
My sense is that things are getting so bad that resolving the "which is the real Labour Party?" question may have to be put to the voters, with two different flavours of labour competing to see which survives. The analogy here would be the year or two when the rump SDP and the new SLD competed for the crown of centre party, which culminated in the SDP giving up when the loonies beat them into some distant place at that by-election.
I don't think we are there, yet, but the party is certainly not making much progress in finding a better solution.
When we have a membership ballot, and if it goes Corbyn's way, then things would be as they are now, with the impasse confirmed.
One option open to the Labour MPs would be to act independently and do enough to satisfy Bercow that they satisfied the criteria of becoming the official opposition. Crucially that would remove Corbyn as official opposition leader and mean that we would see a different face at the despatch box. This would probably mean establishing themselves as the "Independent Parliamentary Labour Party" and putting in place a constitution not dissimilar to the way the Independent Labour Party sought to cooperate at arms length with the Labour Party in the 1930s, with several MPs being members of both until the Labour Party eventually made that incompatible.
I can see the logic but the fact the Labour Party made it incompatible in the 1930s probably means its impossible now...
I think the best we can hope for is that Corbyn enjoys his day in the sun today and decides to call it quits...
Yes. Operating independently of the official party must inevitably result in expulsions and the formation of some other party (one which wouldn't be able to use the word 'Labour' either due to the PPRA, or 'SDP', for that matter). They would still form the official opposition, having more MPs than Corbyn's Labour or the SNP but they'd have to leave all the infrastructure of the official Labour Party behind other than such activists and members that they could persuade to defect with them.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
Now they believe in spending in the good times and spending in the bad times. Hurray!
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
I'd like to hear Keynes thoughts on a self-imposed Brexit slump.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
The Conservatives' magic money tree fallacy was in deciding that it was worth blowing tens of billions on leaving the EU. This was an entirely optional project of questionable importance, yet the blue team decided to let the deficit balloon in order to pursue this hobby horse.
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
LOL! It's only been two weeks since the vote. Nobody knows the long-term effects yet, either on us or "rEU"! It just shows how easily some people panic.
@Topping (a remainer) made the obvious point. Brexit, as compared to 24/7 news cycles and the Twittersphere, will take place over geological time periods.
If you reflect a little, nothing substantive has actually happened vice the economy: we're still in the EU, still in the Single Market, yet to invoke article 50. The markets are reacting to an uncertain future, not a completely unchanged present.
The markets and real world business and commerce. We face a long period of instability, low investment and retrenchment, with no certainty of a positive trade-off. That is why a lot of Remainers voted the way they did. Why risk an almost certain, protracted downside for a high risk shot at a marginal upside?
Do we have any evidence of her actually achieving anything ? Failing to manage immigration, failing to protect our borders adequately, presiding over the shambles that is UK Border Force, failed to handle the London riots, failed to act decisively on Rotherham etc. Whilst being illiberal and authoritarian. Yes, I will grant you she was rude to a few policemen at their conference, but is that really enough ?
The choice is May, Leadsome or Gove.
I don't have a vote in this but it is very clear who the correct choice is.
Be a lot quicker if we just allowed Dacre and Murdoch to meet for lunch and decide who the next PM should be, it would save us a couple of months and the outcome will be the same.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
The UK's problem is that we don't "save" in the good times ! Now we have a self inflicted 3 foot pothole in the road in front of us.
Be a lot quicker if we just allowed Dacre and Murdoch to meet for lunch and decide who the next PM should be, it would save us a couple of months and the outcome will be the same.
Do they always agree though? Dacre was a Brown fan.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
If we look back to the comments at the time of Osborne's punishment budget, one of the reasons that people reacted so negatively is that everyone, experts and laypeople alike, knew that when an economy experiences a negative shock, that is not the time to tighten fiscal policy.
I've had plenty of rants about deficit reduction on here. Debt servicing is costing us a fortune. The only positive about relaxing fiscal policy is that borrowing costs have dropped even lower. Not happy about borrowing more. Don't see that there's a sensible alternative.
Do we have any evidence of her actually achieving anything ? Failing to manage immigration, failing to protect our borders adequately, presiding over the shambles that is UK Border Force, failed to handle the London riots, failed to act decisively on Rotherham etc. Whilst being illiberal and authoritarian. Yes, I will grant you she was rude to a few policemen at their conference, but is that really enough ?
The choice is May, Leadsome or Gove.
I don't have a vote in this but it is very clear who the correct choice is.
So that's a no.
If it is May/Gove I would be voting for Gove, I dont have a problem with leaders being ruthless enough to (politically) assassinate their rivals, we dont need nice people in charge we need effective people in charge that drive a tough bargain for Britain.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
The Conservatives' magic money tree fallacy was in deciding that it was worth blowing tens of billions on leaving the EU. This was an entirely optional project of questionable importance, yet the blue team decided to let the deficit balloon in order to pursue this hobby horse.
Be a lot quicker if we just allowed Dacre and Murdoch to meet for lunch and decide who the next PM should be, it would save us a couple of months and the outcome will be the same.
I think that cosy arrangement ended in 2010 when Gordon Brown left office.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
The Conservatives' magic money tree fallacy was in deciding that it was worth blowing tens of billions on leaving the EU. This was an entirely optional project of questionable importance, yet the blue team decided to let the deficit balloon in order to pursue this hobby horse.
You have wrongly thought that the Conservatives were the ones who decided to do this. The voters cut the cord, if anything The Conservatives were majority opposed. (much to my disgust)
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
LOL! It's only been two weeks since the vote. Nobody knows the long-term effects yet, either on us or "rEU"! It just shows how easily some people panic.
@Topping (a remainer) made the obvious point. Brexit, as compared to 24/7 news cycles and the Twittersphere, will take place over geological time periods.
If you reflect a little, nothing substantive has actually happened vice the economy: we're still in the EU, still in the Single Market, yet to invoke article 50. The markets are reacting to an uncertain future, not a completely unchanged present.
The markets and real world business and commerce. We face a long period of instability, low investment and retrenchment, with no certainty of a positive trade-off. That is why a lot of Remainers voted the way they did. Why risk an almost certain, protracted downside for a high risk shot at a marginal upside?
That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. I've never found fault with your reasons to vote Remain. I would imagine that's common view amongst many Remainers.
We disagree about the upside, which for some Leavers, isn't purely based on the economy.
However, we're never going to reach a consensus, it's not the nature of the site.
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
As usual, a political party is going to make a poor choice for the wrong reasons.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
The Conservatives' magic money tree fallacy was in deciding that it was worth blowing tens of billions on leaving the EU. This was an entirely optional project of questionable importance, yet the blue team decided to let the deficit balloon in order to pursue this hobby horse.
Turns out John McDonnell is the prudent one. Who'd have thought it? The Tories are so lucky Corbyn is an immoveable, abject object. If he were to go they'd be facing a very tough election in 2020.
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
As usual, a political party is going to make a poor choice for the wrong reasons.
One day, I'd like to know why Boris baulked at the last moment, as it seems clear Gove wouldn't have been a threat.
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
Still possible for May to make Boris Minister for Brexit, with Gove as his deputy.
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
Is it any surprise - I think alot of Europe has concluded that the EU isn't perfect but is on balance a positive.
Marvelous what these pollsters manage to find and come up with.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
The Conservatives' magic money tree fallacy was in deciding that it was worth blowing tens of billions on leaving the EU. This was an entirely optional project of questionable importance, yet the blue team decided to let the deficit balloon in order to pursue this hobby horse.
You have wrongly thought that the Conservatives were the ones who decided to do this. The voters cut the cord, if anything The Conservatives were majority opposed. (much to my disgust)
Substitute 'blowing' with 'risking' then. Cameron was like one of Wodehouse's characters who would stake their worldly wealth on a 'sure thing' running in the 3:30 at Kempton, only to discover it had three legs and a dicky tummy.
So with the trashing of Leadsom, I think we can safely assume that the May camp won't be lending Gove any votes. They would clearly rather fight Andrea than Michael, who has a track record of destroying the reputations of his colleagues. If he thought Boris was bad, Lord alone knows what he is going to tell the members about Remainer May during weeks and weeks of the campaign....
His approach seems to be "I cannot win, but I sure as Hell will make sure you lose." Which is not exactly what the Party needs right now.
This trashing mainly seems to be about Murdoch trying to get his creature into the runoff as far as I can see.
Murdoch, UKIP and Arron Banks
Why do you keep banging on about Ukip, they have zero influence on the outcome, only Tory MPs and members will decide.
Leadsom might work with Farage - something May has catagorically ruled out...
Absolutely desperate stuff, I can't believe you mean half the things you post on here.
To me that says she sees BREXIT as more important than national or party unity and unfit for the role of PM.
Could opponents of Leadsom at least stick to a consistent line of attack, in order to make life easy for observers of Conservative Party political life. Is it: 1. That she has never really believed in Brexit or 2. That she sees Brexit as more important than national or party unity?
Or 3. That her CV is being exposed as somewhat overstated, she's not as experienced a leader as she's made herself out to be.
And, a cynic might think, that she chose Brexit because she thought it a good career move. One way of getting attention - as we have seen - but she did not apparently realise that the attention would not just be on the things she wanted. Poor judgment is not what is needed in a PM.
And a cynic might also think that Theresa May chose Remain because she thought it a good career move. Only she didn't actually campaign for it, just in case Leave won. And she let it be known that she didn't really like the EU all that much, just in case, you know...
I think all of the PM candidates are awful in their own way.
Emigration is beginning to look like the best option!
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
LOL! It's only been two weeks since the vote. Nobody knows the long-term effects yet, either on us or "rEU"! It just shows how easily some people panic.
@Topping (a remainer) made the obvious point. Brexit, as compared to 24/7 news cycles and the Twittersphere, will take place over geological time periods.
If you reflect a little, nothing substantive has actually happened vice the economy: we're still in the EU, still in the Single Market, yet to invoke article 50. The markets are reacting to an uncertain future, not a completely unchanged present.
The markets and real world business and commerce. We face a long period of instability, low investment and retrenchment, with no certainty of a positive trade-off. That is why a lot of Remainers voted the way they did. Why risk an almost certain, protracted downside for a high risk shot at a marginal upside?
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
When we're out and thriving maybe they'll change their minds... or if the italian banking system collapses first... (also greece is not fixed)
Linking Chilcott and Brexit. I thought at the time invading Iraq was a profoundly stupid thing to do. The case was based on a set of assumptions that were never examined and were implausible to those of us that actually considered them. Even if you did decide to take on Iraq on humanitarian grounds you wouldn't do it that way if you wanted some chance of avoiding a bad outcome.
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
As usual, a political party is going to make a poor choice for the wrong reasons.
One day, I'd like to know why Boris baulked at the last moment, as it seems clear Gove wouldn't have been a threat.
Coffee House did a very brief behind the scenes sketch of it. He lost ~45 supporters immediately. He surmised that the Cameroons would bludgeon him to death slowly for his 'betrayal' and the Leave vote was split. Decided to keep his powder dry. Could be wrong, but seemed plausible.
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
As usual, a political party is going to make a poor choice for the wrong reasons.
He might have been the man of the moment, but we're not choosing a PM for the moment, we're choosing a PM for a long, hard slog which require consistency, attention to detail, building bridges, unifying the party, and calming the financial and business markets. I'm confident that the party is about to make a good choice for the right reasons.
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
As usual, a political party is going to make a poor choice for the wrong reasons.
The party is not choosing a man (or woman) for the moment but to lead through the rest of this parliament and well into the next one.
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
The Conservatives should have chosen Boris Johnson. For all his faults, he was the man of the moment and he should have been made to see through the cause which he had personified.
Still possible for May to make Boris Minister for Brexit, with Gove as his deputy.
The left used to believe in Keynes theories of saving in the good times and spending in the bad times. Cyclical spending.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
The Conservatives' magic money tree fallacy was in deciding that it was worth blowing tens of billions on leaving the EU. This was an entirely optional project of questionable importance, yet the blue team decided to let the deficit balloon in order to pursue this hobby horse.
You have wrongly thought that the Conservatives were the ones who decided to do this. The voters cut the cord, if anything The Conservatives were majority opposed. (much to my disgust)
Most observers say that it was Tory voters who put Leave (just) over the line.
Danes go eeek! - support for EU membership in Denmark has jumped 10 points to 69%. Also rises in Sweden and Finland as people survey the British chaos.
Weren't they all supposed to be following us and rushing to the exit? Another Leave myth goes up in smoke.
It's actually quite a good Venn diagram. A bunch of the regular posters here favour the top right intersection.
But a Venn diagram doesn't prove anything just by being well-formed. If I drew a big circle called "twit" and a smaller circle called "people called [insert poster's name]" entirely enclosed in it, that is just a way of me making a statement.
Hint to Scott: Morskiology and Quantian Capital are not actual things.
Comments
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/750576025625567232
Except this time it's somewhat more serious, we're talking about someone who wants to be Prime Minister.
Yesterday @DaemonBarber posted a link to an excellent essay which delineated an old phenomenon that the Internet has amplified and exacerbated.
If we wish, we can all live in a partisan bubble in which we only see content our allies post, where we only post an opposition line to ridicule it thus winning credit with our confreres, and we neither converse or discuss, we merely reinforce our own biases and prejudices.
Chilcott will not change minds, of that I'm convinced.
"The main expectation that I have is that it will not be possible in future to engage in a military or indeed a diplomatic endeavour on such a scale and of such gravity without really careful challenge analysis and assessment and collective political judgment being applied to it.
There are many lessons in the report but that probably is the central one for the future." [My bold]
Note his comment about diplomatic endeavour. This has implication for a PM triggering Article 50 "without really careful challenge analysis and assessment and collective political judgment being applied to it."
Is she really a mother?
This is pure sophistry. There is no conceivable form of Brexit that will simultaneously avoid a UK recession, is acceptable to Leave voters and, be agreed by every one of the 27 EU nations in possession of a veto – there’s just no way of making those three circles of the Venn diagram overlap. That’s one of the reasons Remainers thought that Brexit wasn’t such a great idea.
Had the Government come up with plan it would have either guaranteed that the economy was plunged into a recession, angered the vast majority of those who voted to leave the EU or been instantly laughed out of Brussels. Either way, Leavers – who have bundled up their paradoxes into a big, unsolvable mess and hospital-passed it to the Government – would have placed the blame on the doorstep of Number 10. So, no, of course there isn’t a plan nor can there be one until this country holds a general election and the parties lay out their visions for Brexit.
https://twitter.com/quantian1/status/749675831719518208
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/05/the-paradoxes-at-the-heart-of-the-brexit-campaign-make-planning/
Brexit will need a full-on department to handle it. The UK PM is the principal, she would be used sparingly and only when necessary. The PM runs the country.
Leadsom is too inexperienced to do the job. Maybe in five years. Not now.
I think all of the PM candidates are awful in their own way.
Another PB best selling author - forename Sean ....
It just shows how easily some people panic.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/07/alastair-meeks-on-how-conservative-leavers-could-gift-labour-the-next-election/
If you reflect a little, nothing substantive has actually happened vice the economy: we're still in the EU, still in the Single Market, yet to invoke article 50. The markets are reacting to an uncertain future, not a completely unchanged present.
If we're entering a downturn then that is the time for the deficit to expand, whereas in the period of growth we've had in recent years was the time for the deficit to come down.
Labour's magic money tree fallacy was expanding the deficit in the good times.
I don't have a vote in this but it is very clear who the correct choice is.
I've had plenty of rants about deficit reduction on here. Debt servicing is costing us a fortune. The only positive about relaxing fiscal policy is that borrowing costs have dropped even lower. Not happy about borrowing more. Don't see that there's a sensible alternative.
Read it. You might learn something.
If it is May/Gove I would be voting for Gove, I dont have a problem with leaders being ruthless enough to (politically) assassinate their rivals, we dont need nice people in charge we need effective people in charge that drive a tough bargain for Britain.
It's very simple. Whilst there's an argument for choosing a leader/PM who supported the Leave campaign, there aren't actually any serious candidates who did so. Boris is Boris and has already been shot down. Michael Gove is great in some ways but not really well-suited to this role. Andrea Leadsom is an inexperienced junior minister whom no-one would look twice at in normal circumstances.
Them's the facts. Bet accordingly.
We disagree about the upside, which for some Leavers, isn't purely based on the economy.
However, we're never going to reach a consensus, it's not the nature of the site.
As usual, a political party is going to make a poor choice for the wrong reasons.
May = Jeeves.
Linking Chilcott and Brexit. I thought at the time invading Iraq was a profoundly stupid thing to do. The case was based on a set of assumptions that were never examined and were implausible to those of us that actually considered them. Even if you did decide to take on Iraq on humanitarian grounds you wouldn't do it that way if you wanted some chance of avoiding a bad outcome.
FWIW I think all of the above applies to Brexit.
Weren't they all supposed to be following us and rushing to the exit? Another Leave myth goes up in smoke.
Hint to Scott: Morskiology and Quantian Capital are not actual things.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD