politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » It has to be May

Second, as in Andrea....

Sun not convinced by IDS 'black ops' claim:

IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.

Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.

Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.

This is demonstrably absurd.

It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.

Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1423899/andrea-leadsoms-lost-her-head-tory-leadership-candidate-has-shown-shes-lacking-in-vital-qualities-that-make-a-prime-minister/

"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.

The result of the 23 June referendum is only "advisory" and the Government should launch an independent investigation into the benefits, risks and costs of Brexit before making plans.

More than 1,000 of the barristers signed a letter to Mr Cameron saying that primary legislation will be needed before Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - which covers how EU members can leave - can be put into use."

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-vote-not-legally-binding-say-lawyers-10498256

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Second, as in Andrea....

Sun not convinced by IDS 'black ops' claim:

IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.

Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.

Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.

This is demonstrably absurd.

It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.

Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1423899/andrea-leadsoms-lost-her-head-tory-leadership-candidate-has-shown-shes-lacking-in-vital-qualities-that-make-a-prime-minister/

Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.

You seriously think that Fleet Street is taking direction from the May campaign?

CarlottaVance said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Second, as in Andrea....

Sun not convinced by IDS 'black ops' claim:

IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.

Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.

Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.

This is demonstrably absurd.

It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.

Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1423899/andrea-leadsoms-lost-her-head-tory-leadership-candidate-has-shown-shes-lacking-in-vital-qualities-that-make-a-prime-minister/

Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.

You seriously think that Fleet Street is taking direction from the May campaign?

Or from CCHQ, yes, and I do not suppose the near-unanimous outpourings on social media are entirely spontaneous either.

Edit: note that I am not suggesting Leadsom is the better candidate.

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Second, as in Andrea....

Sun not convinced by IDS 'black ops' claim:

IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.

Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.

Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.

This is demonstrably absurd.

It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.

Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1423899/andrea-leadsoms-lost-her-head-tory-leadership-candidate-has-shown-shes-lacking-in-vital-qualities-that-make-a-prime-minister/

Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.

May is a well known commodity, Leadsom isn't. It is unsurprising that there is a concentration on the latter at the outset. As to Theresa's record in the Home Office it is universally recognised as impressive, the only area in which there has been issues is in meeting the immigration target. However Leave campaigners spent months telling us this was the fault of the EU, now they are all largely supporting Leadsom they want to make it all the Home Secretary's fault. They can't have it both ways.

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Second, as in Andrea....

Sun not convinced by IDS 'black ops' claim:

IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.

Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.

Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.

This is demonstrably absurd.

It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.

Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1423899/andrea-leadsoms-lost-her-head-tory-leadership-candidate-has-shown-shes-lacking-in-vital-qualities-that-make-a-prime-minister/

Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.

You seriously think that Fleet Street is taking direction from the May campaign?

Or from CCHQ, yes,

I suspect CCHQ would laugh like drains at the suggestion.....

I think Fleet Street:

1) Genuinely think May is the better candidate
2) Think she will win and
3) Want to be on the winning side

At the moment Leadsom and her little helpers are making their job very much easier......

ToryJim said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Second, as in Andrea....

Sun not convinced by IDS 'black ops' claim:

IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.

Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.

Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.

This is demonstrably absurd.

It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.

Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1423899/andrea-leadsoms-lost-her-head-tory-leadership-candidate-has-shown-shes-lacking-in-vital-qualities-that-make-a-prime-minister/

Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.

May is a well known commodity, Leadsom isn't. It is unsurprising that there is a concentration on the latter at the outset. As to Theresa's record in the Home Office it is universally recognised as impressive, the only area in which there has been issues is in meeting the immigration target. However Leave campaigners spent months telling us this was the fault of the EU, now they are all largely supporting Leadsom they want to make it all the Home Secretary's fault. They can't have it both ways.

Yes, Leadsom is out of her depth, but May has done the square root of sod all at the Home Office, and the immigration figures are not her only failure, look at the Border Force fiascos, for instance, and non-EU immigration is surely not down to the EU. May criticised the police at the Police Federation conference but what has she done? And since the federation is basically a union representing the lower ranks, how was this more than gesture politics?

What is odd is not that the papers have gone after Leadsom but that none have taken a second look at the Home Secretary (apart from one critical article pulled by the Telegraph, if pb reports from Guido are to be believed). Coincidence? Surely not.

felix said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

Second, as in Andrea....

Sun not convinced by IDS 'black ops' claim:

IT’S increasingly clear that Andrea Leadsom lacks the experience and temperament to be our next Prime Minister.

Mrs Leadsom should have spent the weekend reflecting on the purpose of her campaign after a bruising few days.

Instead, former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith was dispatched across the UK media to accuse the Conservative Party “establishment” of waging a “black ops” operation against Leadsom’s candidacy.

This is demonstrably absurd.

It’s not a smear to check if a candidate for the biggest job in the country has embellished her CV.

Nor is it underhand for a newspaper to print words spoken by their interviewee, even if they were meant without malice.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1423899/andrea-leadsoms-lost-her-head-tory-leadership-candidate-has-shown-shes-lacking-in-vital-qualities-that-make-a-prime-minister/

Both may be true. Leadsom is out of her depth but it is surely more than coincidence that all the papers are going after Leadsom in the same way and none are looking at Theresa May's less than stunning record at the Home Office, or near-invisibility in the referendum campaign.

You seriously think that Fleet Street is taking direction from the May campaign?

Or from CCHQ, yes, and I do not suppose the near-unanimous outpourings on social media are entirely spontaneous either.

Edit: note that I am not suggesting Leadsom is the better candidate.

Wow - when did CCHQ get this extraordinary power over press, Twitter and FB?

You missed the general election then?

JosiasJessop said:

Leadsom really is a Tory Corbyn.

In terms of campaign dynamics she's a Tory Trump to May's Tory Jeb Bush.

May's just tried to make a major pitch for the centre ground on the economy but all the coverage is about Leadsom.

Mr Herdson's well-reasoned argument only holds if this is politics as normal. Are we sure it is? Certainly the referendum was not. Do we expect the turmoil in the country and the party to magically disappear for the Tory leadership ballot?

Brave call to do so with such certainty.

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leadsom's 'apology' is really crass.

Firstly, as I think someone said on the previous thread, the public comment is a non-apology: according to the BBC, she says she deeply regrets that anyone thinks otherwise. (about not wanting motherhood to play part in the campaign).

She then farcically attacks the Times article again: " (it) said completely the opposite of what I said and believe". No, you stupid fool: it reported what you said.

There are other points, but anyone supporting her just because she supported leave (after some damascene moment in the last couple of years) is putting their own narrow views ahead of the good of the country.

Leadsom really is a Tory Corbyn.

Funny that, apart from Plato, no-one has mentioned the Mail interview where Theresa May raised the subject before Leadsom jumped in with both feet.

May talking about her personal circumstances doesn't give anyone the right to use it in a wounding and deeply hurtful manner. The truly stupid aspect of Leadsom's interview is having seen the danger she ploughed on regardless. Dear God.

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

Leadsom's 'apology' is really crass.

Firstly, as I think someone said on the previous thread, the public comment is a non-apology: according to the BBC, she says she deeply regrets that anyone thinks otherwise. (about not wanting motherhood to play part in the campaign).

She then farcically attacks the Times article again: " (it) said completely the opposite of what I said and believe". No, you stupid fool: it reported what you said.

There are other points, but anyone supporting her just because she supported leave (after some damascene moment in the last couple of years) is putting their own narrow views ahead of the good of the country.

Leadsom really is a Tory Corbyn.

Funny that, apart from Plato, no-one has mentioned the Mail interview where Theresa May raised the subject before Leadsom jumped in with both feet.

She didn't raise it in the same way, did she, or to make the same implications?

JackW said:

"I'll go back to Conhome, and I'll think of some way to get the Tories back! After all, tomorrow is another day!"

Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!

Did you know 'Scarlett' was originally going to be called 'Pansy'......and the actress who played that drink of water, Melanie....is still very much with us:

http://www.ebar.com/arts/art_article.php?sec=film&article=1509

Morning all.

Cheers Mr Herdson, - a leadership contest devoid of the fun and games Labour experienced with their £3 entryist will make this a very much one horse race imho.

DecrepitJohnL said:

ToryJim said:

@DecrepitJohnL

If she were that bad she would have been fired. In six years there are bound to be items on both sides of the ledger. There are far more positives than negatives.

Oh if you are relying on Guido to support your point it's a pretty poor show. The article in question was journalistically trash, it was a complete hatchet job and borderline libellous. Any sane editor would have taken it down.

If any sane editor would have taken it down, who put it up?

And since Cameron is famously reluctant to reshuffle, longevity in itself becomes devalued. No-one is calling for IDS to be leader, even though he stayed at DWP for six years (same as May, till he resigned at the start of the referendum).

If Theresa May's record as Home Secretary has more positives than negatives, then presumably they'd have been fairly laid out in any press examination of her record -- but there has been none and that is the point.

They have over the period she has been in office. May has been under scrutiny for over a decade, the media are playing catch up with Leadsom.

Theresa May is now making a positive pitch for the job. Hat-tip CarlottaVance on the last thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3683723/Theresa-May-vows-Conservatives-service-working-people.html

Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:

"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.

"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."

She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise."
Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theresa May is now making a positive pitch for the job. Hat-tip CarlottaVance on the last thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3683723/Theresa-May-vows-Conservatives-service-working-people.html

Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:

"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.

"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."

She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise."
Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."

Much more helpful if we can move onto policy - May striking out towards the centre?

CarlottaVance said:

AndyJS said:

"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.

Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.

But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.

... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind.
If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?

logical_song said:

CarlottaVance said:

AndyJS said:

"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.

Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.

But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.

... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind.
If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?

Yep. Pretty much.

If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.

The decision has been taken - time to move on.

Alanbrooke said:

Just guff really.

if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.

people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.

When do politicians say anything that isn't guff?

Alanbrooke said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theresa May is now making a positive pitch for the job. Hat-tip CarlottaVance on the last thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3683723/Theresa-May-vows-Conservatives-service-working-people.html

Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:

"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.

"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."

She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise."
Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."

Just guff really.

if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.

people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.

Not guff, but not fleshed out. At least there is some philosophical and policy architecture there.

ToryJim said:

Alanbrooke said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theresa May is now making a positive pitch for the job. Hat-tip CarlottaVance on the last thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3683723/Theresa-May-vows-Conservatives-service-working-people.html

Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:

"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.

"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."

She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise."
Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."

Just guff really.

if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.

people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.

Not guff, but not fleshed out. At least there is some philosophical and policy architecture there.

"philosophical and policy architecture"

I'll put that to the blokes on the factory shop floor this morning and see their views.

I suspect it will entail , three f.s , two words and one meaning.

Alanbrooke said:

ToryJim said:

Alanbrooke said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theresa May is now making a positive pitch for the job. Hat-tip CarlottaVance on the last thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3683723/Theresa-May-vows-Conservatives-service-working-people.html

Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:

"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.

"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."

She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise."
Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."

Just guff really.

if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.

people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.

Not guff, but not fleshed out. At least there is some philosophical and policy architecture there.

"philosophical and policy architecture"

I'll put that to the blokes on the factory shop floor this morning and see their views.

I suspect it will entail , three f.s , two words and one meaning.

This is a politics website. Phrases such as "philosophical and policy architecture" are fine on here. If you're trying to sell it to the "blokes on the factory shop floor" you may want to put the message in different language. Which May might well be doing in the original quotes.

However, you seem to be being rather derogatory of the "blokes on the factory shop floor", many of whom can probably understand the arguments well. Whether they believe May is a different matter.

@Alanbrooke
The people she needs to appeal to in the first instance are politically engaged. At least more than most.

We've seen stateside what happens when a 'politician' eschews thoughtful policy in favour of emotional appeals to the lower socio-economic groups.

logical_song said:

CarlottaVance said:

logical_song said:

CarlottaVance said:

AndyJS said:

"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.

Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.

But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.

... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind.
If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?

Yep. Pretty much.

If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.

The decision has been taken - time to move on.

Does that apply to the other referenda?
The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever?
We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding?
My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.

Yes, they can put it in their manifesto and campaign for it at a General Election - just like the SNP put their Independence Referendum in their Holyrood manifesto (and some think, like Cameron, didn't think they'd win a majority so actually have to implement it...).

That's how it works. But by the end of this Parliamentary Term we should be out of the EU.....if someone wants to stand in 2020 saying 'take us back in' the electorate can decide....

logical_song said:

CarlottaVance said:

logical_song said:

CarlottaVance said:

AndyJS said:

"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.

Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.

But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.

... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind.
If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?

Yep. Pretty much.

If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.

The decision has been taken - time to move on.

Does that apply to the other referenda?
The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever?
We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding?
My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.

Surely IF A50 has been triggered but the electorate has appeared to change it’s mind (Massive swings to loudly pro-EU LD’s, for example) then it’s down to the 27 to consider it.
AIUI from comments here triggering A50 is a one way street.

david_herdson said:

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.

The result of the 23 June referendum is only "advisory" and the Government should launch an independent investigation into the benefits, risks and costs of Brexit before making plans.

More than 1,000 of the barristers signed a letter to Mr Cameron saying that primary legislation will be needed before Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - which covers how EU members can leave - can be put into use."

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-vote-not-legally-binding-say-lawyers-10498256

The Moggster himself said that the Government can enact Article 50 on it's own. Why waste any further discussion on the matter?

Why would barristers specialising in EU law want to waste time at several hundred pounds an hour in trying to prevent leaving the EU? Who could possibly say.

It's a bloody mystery!

oh, and thanks for the thread

ToryJim said:

@Alanbrooke
The people she needs to appeal to in the first instance are politically engaged. At least more than most.

We've seen stateside what happens when a 'politician' eschews thoughtful policy in favour of emotional appeals to the lower socio-economic groups.

the people she needs to appeal to initially are so far removed form the people she claims she wants to help it's pointless saying it.

MTimT said:

Mr Herdson's well-reasoned argument only holds if this is politics as normal. Are we sure it is? Certainly the referendum was not. Do we expect the turmoil in the country and the party to magically disappear for the Tory leadership ballot?

Brave call to do so with such certainty.

Less brave when she's campaigning so poorly. I stand by my comment in the leader that "Leadsom can only win if May makes a horrible error or Leadsom can capture the popular imagination. Neither is likely."

rottenborough said:

david_herdson said:

RobD said:

AndyJS said:

"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.

The result of the 23 June referendum is only "advisory" and the Government should launch an independent investigation into the benefits, risks and costs of Brexit before making plans.

More than 1,000 of the barristers signed a letter to Mr Cameron saying that primary legislation will be needed before Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - which covers how EU members can leave - can be put into use."

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-vote-not-legally-binding-say-lawyers-10498256

The Moggster himself said that the Government can enact Article 50 on it's own. Why waste any further discussion on the matter?

Why would barristers specialising in EU law want to waste time at several hundred pounds an hour in trying to prevent leaving the EU? Who could possibly say.

The former Clerk of the HoC told Radio 4's Week in Westminster that Article 50 was within Royal Prerogative and that was the end of it.

To think, the Queen could have sent a sneaky letter to Juncker years ago...

Alanbrooke said:

ToryJim said:

Alanbrooke said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theresa May is now making a positive pitch for the job. Hat-tip CarlottaVance on the last thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3683723/Theresa-May-vows-Conservatives-service-working-people.html

Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:

"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.

"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."

She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise."
Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."

Just guff really.

if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.

people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.

Not guff, but not fleshed out. At least there is some philosophical and policy architecture there.

"philosophical and policy architecture"

I'll put that to the blokes on the factory shop floor this morning and see their views.

I suspect it will entail , three f.s , two words and one meaning.

TBF she's identified some serious problems that need giving

That's an important first step even if she's not set out the answers in this interview - but that's because it's about priority/agenda setting not solutions

I think that are all issues that need addressing not exhaustive of course - affordable housing definitely need to be up there)

Alanbrooke said:

"derogatory" lol, grow up JJ, they have a better undertsanding than you.

They are pissed of with flower worded snake oil salesmen debating abstract points and doing nothing. Since I spend probably more time with factory workers than most people on the site I'm quite happy to tell it as it is.

I am grown up, thanks.

Are the factory workers your own employees?

Edit: you're quite happy to tell it as you perceive it: how it is might be substantially different.

JohnLilburne said:

logical_song said:

CarlottaVance said:

logical_song said:

CarlottaVance said:

AndyJS said:

"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.

Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.

But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.

... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind.
If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?

Yep. Pretty much.

If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.

The decision has been taken - time to move on.

Does that apply to the other referenda?
The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever?
We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding?
My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.

Sure referenda can be re-run, but not immediately because some people don't like the answer.

My suggestion was that the electorate may regret the answer, maybe because the NHS aren't getting an extra £350million/week.

OldKingCole said:

logical_song said:

CarlottaVance said:

logical_song said:

CarlottaVance said:

AndyJS said:

"Hundreds of barristers have warned Prime Minister David Cameron that last month's vote to leave the European Union is not legally binding.

Barristers don't have to get re-elected....and we all knew that the referendum - as all referendums in the UK - was advisory.

But only an idiot with an electoral death wish would seek to overturn the result.

... unless the electorate (well at least 2% of it) change their collective mind.
If the referendum result comes to be seen by the country as a big mistake based on two huge lies by Leave should the government say 'Sorry, you have made your bed and must now lie on it.' ?

Yep. Pretty much.

If we go down the road of 'the other side told lies - do it again' we'll never have a government.....now while that may appear superficially attractive, there is much business to be done.

The decision has been taken - time to move on.

Does that apply to the other referenda?
The decision on Scottish Independence has been taken, so no chance of it ever being re-run. A decision on the voting system has been taken so we're stuck with FPTP forever?
We decided to stay in the European Community (1975), so that decision should have been binding?
My mentioning the two big lies (£350m/week to NHS and much reduced immigration) was not a reason for the referendum to be re-run soon, but a possible reason why the electorate may change their mind sooner than expected. If the electorate make it clear that they want a different outcome the politicians will have to respond.

Surely IF A50 has been triggered but the electorate has appeared to change it’s mind (Massive swings to loudly pro-EU LD’s, for example) then it’s down to the 27 to consider it.
AIUI from comments here triggering A50 is a one way street.

I don't think the lies will be the reason the electorate end up demanding a rerun. Economic depression and a balance of payments crisis might be.

PB should have its own choir for the leavers, so they can all sing the same chorus at the same time every day (preferably at dawn) so as not not bore with its continual repetition.

The only repetition that should be allowed on PB is that Gordon Brown was bonkers and should never have held any high office. !

Charles said:

Alanbrooke said:

ToryJim said:

Alanbrooke said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theresa May is now making a positive pitch for the job. Hat-tip CarlottaVance on the last thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3683723/Theresa-May-vows-Conservatives-service-working-people.html

Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:

"If you're black, you're treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you're white. If you're a white, working-class boy, you're less likely than anybody else to go to university. If you're at a state school, you're less likely to reach the top professions than if you're educated privately.

"If you're a woman, you still earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there's too often not enough help to hand. If you're young, you'll find it harder than ever before to own your own home."

She will say that "fighting these injustices is not enough", and add: "If you're from a working-class family, life is just much harder than many people in politics realise."
Mrs May will say: "These are the reasons why, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will put itself - completely, absolutely, unequivocally - at the service of working people."

Just guff really.

if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.

people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.

Not guff, but not fleshed out. At least there is some philosophical and policy architecture there.

"philosophical and policy architecture"

I'll put that to the blokes on the factory shop floor this morning and see their views.

I suspect it will entail , three f.s , two words and one meaning.

TBF she's identified some serious problems that need giving

That's an important first step even if she's not set out the answers in this interview - but that's because it's about priority/agenda setting not solutions

I think that are all issues that need addressing not exhaustive of course - affordable housing definitely need to be up there)

On a scale of 1-10 do you think these are the biggest problems facing the UK atm ?

Which do you think is a better way to go - build enough housing so that it becomes affordable for all and people stop moaning about housing , or pass loads of scoial legislation to fix "problems" declared by upper middle class do gooders on a guilt trip ?

These may be problems but there not the chief ones we face.

tlg86 said:

I suspect that May is going to win this, but I can't imagine that the membership are particularly happy at being presented with this choice. If I was a member I'd demanding to know why the MPs couldn't come up with two electable candidates (even if one couldn't be Michael Gove)?

'cos boris walked. it seems because he lost a number of his signed up mps to Gove.

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

"derogatory" lol, grow up JJ, they have a better undertsanding than you.

They are pissed of with flower worded snake oil salesmen debating abstract points and doing nothing. Since I spend probably more time with factory workers than most people on the site I'm quite happy to tell it as it is.

I am grown up, thanks.

Are the factory workers your own employees?

Edit: you're quite happy to tell it as you perceive it: how it is might be substantially different.

Yes they are my employees but I dont own them.

And when they tell me to f off I'm pretty sure they mean it. There';s not much of a perception gap.

blackburn63 said:

So there's still some big girls blouses whining about the referendum result, get over it ffs. If a party is stupid enough to propose a re-run in their next manifesto they'll get slaughtered.

depends on circumstances. likely to be 4 years away.

ToryJim said:

Alanbrooke said:

ToryJim said:

@Alanbrooke
The people she needs to appeal to in the first instance are politically engaged. At least more than most.

We've seen stateside what happens when a 'politician' eschews thoughtful policy in favour of emotional appeals to the lower socio-economic groups.

the people she needs to appeal to initially are so far removed form the people she claims she wants to help it's pointless saying it.

Absolute crap. I know it goes against prejudices but Conservative Party members are boringly ordinary.

I suggest you look again.

edited

edited

Parliament votes for Article 50 and we Brexit. The only likely reason for it voting against is that the terms or manner of leaving is in dispute. In that circumstance it would act as a delay rather than an outright rejection. Parliament is answerable to the electorate for its decisions, who may punish MPs they think are willfully ignoring the public will.

FF43 said:

Parliament votes for Article 50 and we Brexit. The only likely reason for it voting against is that the terms or manner of leaving is in dispute. In that circumstance it would act as a delay rather than an outright rejection. Parliament is answerable to the electorate for its decisions, who may punish MPs they think are willfully ignoring the public will.

I think the issue worrying people who object to this approach is that there isn't a majority in the House for A50. Easily a dozen Tories who could object potentially.

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:

ToryJim said:

Alanbrooke said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Theresa May is now making a positive pitch for the job. Hat-tip CarlottaVance on the last thread.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-3683723/Theresa-May-vows-Conservatives-service-working-people.html

Workers on company boards (as in Germany?) and surely this is a return to one-nation Toryism:

Just guff really.

if this is her pitch were all in trouble. She talks as if she is sharing the proceeds of growth, someone needs to tell her we need some growth in the first place.

people want affordable housing and food on the table not airy fairy notions from Oxford.

Not guff, but not fleshed out. At least there is some philosophical and policy architecture there.

If you substitute Labour Party for Conservative Party in the last sentence, is there anything there that would sound out of place coming from Jeremy Corbyn?

Guff it is.

Not really. Most of the quoted text identifies some problems in our society, although some may argue they are not real problems. She then says she'll address them - which you can choose to believe or not. But at least she is identifying problems.

The proper approach:
1) Identify the problem.
2) Characterise the problem.
3) Define several solutions.
4) Identify side-effects of the solutions.
5) Choose one (or importantly, choose not to do anything, if the side-effects of a solution are worse than the initial problem)

Corbyn's solution (and that of some on the right as well)::
1) Identify the problem.
2) Apply an ideological solution, regardless of the consequences.
3) Sit back, knowing you'll never get a chance to implement it.

We see this in (amongst others) Labour's fondness for railway renationalisation.

Wasn't the line out of King's Cross re-nationalised a while back. with happy results? Isn't a preference for private ownership "an ideological solution"?

Let's look at this another way. I don't have a job, I'm retired. When I did have one, it was only because the organisation chose to carve up the work in way which fitted my CV. It didn't have to (a POV whose advantages it usually quickly came to see ). The same is true for every member of the workforce. How many Peebies, I wonder, have been sacked for being "left over from the previous reign", to use the immortal words of Sellar and Yeatman.

On a scale of 1-10 do you think these are the biggest problems facing the UK atm ?

Which do you think is a better way to go - build enough housing so that it becomes affordable for all and people stop moaning about housing , or pass loads of scoial legislation to fix "problems" declared by upper middle class do gooders on a guilt trip ?

These may be problems but there not the chief ones we face.

I'd say her list includes several top 10 problems:

1. Housing
2. WWC male educational attainment (I disagree with the emphasis on university but she's identified a real problem)
3. Equal treatment in the criminal justice system - critical to create an integrated society
4. Mental health - may be this isn't as important an issue to most people, but our treatment of the mentally ill is shameful

If she addresses those 4 issues and does nothing else she will have been a fantastic PM in my view. Which do you regard as unimportant?

rottenborough said:

blackburn63 said:

So there's still some big girls blouses whining about the referendum result, get over it ffs. If a party is stupid enough to propose a re-run in their next manifesto they'll get slaughtered.

depends on circumstances. likely to be 4 years away.

As someone )Mr Rottenborough?) pointed out upthread, it will depend on the economic circumstances. If a week is a long time, then 4 years ......