politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile ahead of the CON conference Ken Clarke goes on th
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Meanwhile ahead of the CON conference Ken Clarke goes on the attack over BREXIT
Next in line this conference season are the Conservatives who are in their traditional final place slot. Inevitably BREXIT, what it actually means and the timetable, will dominate and you can expect all sides to be vocal.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
And he is right.
Surprise.
These three (Clarke, Heseltine and Patten, sometimes aided by John Major) have been playing this game for 25 years. I guess it was too much to hope that leaving the EU might actually shut them up for a bit...
*Assuming we do leave.
I think the characterisation that all remain voters were consciencious and weighed up all the pros and cons or had a huge internal struggle while all leave voters are reactionary bigots is pretty condescending. The truth, as ever, is much more grey.
public policy polling
Colorado 46-40
Florida 48-45
NC 49-45
Pennsylvania 49-44
Virginia 49-43
Interesting article attempting to explain Trump and BrExit in terms of the Ultimatum Game, but in reality his second diagram says all that needs to be said.
Is Clinton the greater number in all of these polls @619??
Bottom line is that pretty much everyone posting here is better educated and informed, since regular participation in political online forums is likely to be well down the leisure pursuits of most C2DE voters. So none of us can really reflect how many of the population feel, except through anecdote.
“He will go down in history as the man who made the mistake of taking us out of the European Union, by mistake,” he says.”
Cameron didn't take us out, we voted to leave, and May might get around to it one day. I think it's fair to say Clarke is exhibiting a typical Remainer reaction that we are all too familiar with here.
"When I talk to Trump supporters, it’s not usually about doubting climate change, or thinking Trump will take the conservative movement in the right direction, or even immigration. It’s about the feeling that a group of arrogant, intolerant, sanctimonious elites have seized control of a lot of national culture and are using it mostly to spread falsehood and belittle anybody different than them. And Trump is both uniquely separate from these elites and uniquely repugnant to them – which makes him look pretty good to everyone else.
This is definitely true. Please vote Hillary anyway.
Aside from the fact that getting back at annoying people isn’t worth eroding the foundations of civil society – do you really think a Trump election is going to hurt these people at all? Make them question anything? “Oh, 51% of the American people disagree with me, I guess that means I’ve got a lot of self-reflecting to do.” Of course not. A Trump election would just confirm for them exactly what they already believe – that the average American is a stupid racist who needs to be kept as far away from public life as possible. If Trump gets elected, sure, the editorial pages will be full of howls of despair the next day, but underneath the howls will be quiet satisfaction that the world is exactly the way they believed it to be."
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/09/28/ssc-endorses-clinton-johnson-or-stein/
Perhaps the greatest amount of blame for Brexit and Trump should fall on the Federal Reserve.
There is enough truth in what he says for it to sting a bit but Ken is no longer a player in the party or the country. Mrs May has a lot of work to do this week in showing that she genuinely has a grip and a vision of where her premiership is going. It is very much in not just the party's interest but the national interest that she succeeds in this.
Since there probably won't be a vote, and it would not be lost if there is one, stuff like this can be an amusing aside. Hell, it's more likely to ensure A50 is triggered sooner to make sure no one can prevent exit (ignoring for the moment the talk of A50 able to be halted by some EU fudge, as that's a whole other unlikely political question), whereas, in theory, without open talk of voting against maybe the pressure to imminently declare would be less and thus more opportunity for some game changer that would actually lead to a reverse in position (not that any seem remotely probable) to occur.
OK, David Cameron didn't *NEED* to have a referendum on 23rd June 2016 but a referendum was coming sooner or later. The situation as it was clearly wasn't sustainable.
Of course, SC is not a DEM target, so utterly irrelevant to anything much at all, other than the fact it has Trump in the lead.
I am beginning to think Theresa May is out of her depth.
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/u-s-household-incomes-a-49-year-perspective
The bottom line is
He's right on Mrs May and the three Brexiteers.
She couldn't find two better Brexiteers than David Davis and Liam phuqing Fox?
These are ostensibly intelligent people.
He would have split the party.
As for how much influence he has: very little in the Conservative Party nowadays.
IDS was only ever designed to be a "stop gap" until something better emerged but they thought that was a better strategy than a complete split of the party under Ken Clarke.
And you could say the strategy worked as IDS lead to Michael Howard which lead to David Cameron which lead to renewal and government.
- the hardline Brexiters wont be happy with the outcome, whatever it is
- the PM faces particularly challenging times (and colleagues)
- the Government has not yet worked out its approach to Brexit
- Boris and Gove gave credibility to Farage
- leaving the EU will be a mistake
The fifth we have debated at length; he is however entitled to his view notwithstanding the vote, as are we all. The other four assertions appear difficult to contest, to me?
As for how people feel, I think the leave side had a better handle on it that the remain side. Read Robert's paper on working class people and the effects globalisation has had on their incomes, clearly he understands why there is so much anger within the CDE social groups, this whole being one of nations top investment managers. I have enough contact through my friends and family to see first hand what stagnant incomes are doing and how the housing market, especially in London, is driving people into the arms of Corbyn and other reactionaries. One doesn't have to be living through it to understand it. One of the reasons I want the Tories to get tough on landlords and overseas "investors" in property is because housing presents a long term issue for the party and opens the door to someone like Corbyn in the future. I'd rather they lose a few hundred thousand landlord votes today and force them all to sell up to owner occupiers than have 40% of the country in private rentals looking for a solution and being presented with rent controls by Corbyn.
Yes, it's not immediately clear what the Leavers on here would have expected Clarke to say. It's almost the definition of a non-news story insofar as it is a dog biting a man rather than vice versa.
Dems (and clever people who are long Clinton) will be happy with those numbers.
The role of MPs and the binding (or not, as in our system) nature of referenda are really the sticking points. Most people would probably agree MPs are there to represent their constituents, and that the role is about them exercising their judgement as they see fit, and the people judge if they think they did a good job at the next election. But applied to the EU vote, that would mean theoretically, though improbably, a majority of MPs would be within their rights to ignore the referendum, even if their own areas voted Leave. And that would lead to a lot of awkwardness people most people also probably think with such evidence of national and/or local will, MPs should not go against that lightly.
It's all an interesting debate, except for the emotional investment we all have, the fear of Leave or the fear of Leave being taken away, making it far less fun.
The rest of your post is fair comment IMHO.
I have no problem with people posting any legit polling from us from any state. One thing I ask posters, It would be nice to have the 538 rating with it.
AKA representative democracy. If we let public opinion directly determine policy we'd have limitless public spending, public hangings and zero taxes.
People forget this was peak Euro time, in 2001, and with Clarke as leader Blair might well have gone for it. It's always been pretty clear Clarke can't keep his mouth shut when it comes to Europe. Clarke's campaign material was also pompous, and self-entitled, whilst IDS at least paid members some respect and made a good case for focussing on social problems.
Our entry into the Euro would have been a national disaster, and I wanted to keep the party intact, so I voted IDS.
I have no regrets.
Instead of Ken Clarke lamenting what's happened and ranting and raving about Cameron giving people the referendum wouldn't it be more constructive to lay out what his vision of "Brexit" is? (I assume Single Market membership, continuation of free movement, etc.)
Even the Labour Party is (very slowly) starting to come to terms with what's happened and beginning to put forward a few ideas for what they'd like to see happen next...
In theory at least (if sadly not in practice) it would have been better to have worked out four or five possible futures for the UK - for example full EU involvement, semi-detached EU (as before), continental Brexit (Norway etc.), and full English Brexit. And then put these to a Referendum using the Alternative Vote mechanism, whose fame in being the best way to choose which from a list of options has the support of the majority is of course legendary.
Now that would have been fun (at least for us here on PB)!
IMHO this would have led to a huge chasm on the Right, and the rise of UKIP much earlier. Possibly enough to stop the Conservatives from even getting near power under FPTP when the time eventually came.
Which is why I hope you understand that voting to stay in the EU would just have continued to store up problems and eventually resulted in a very large and very bitter reaction from those who have lost out from globalisation and specifically the EU. The EU is a badly designed political union that needs huge reform or to just call it a day. We're seeing a rise in reactionary parties across the EU, much of it is being fuelled by anti-EU feeling, eventually one of those parties will break through in Western Europe, or takeover a mainstream party. The EU is the cause of too much personal suffering in the European nations, until that stops being the case I think our vote to leave will be vindicated, economy be damned.
Whatever. The referendum has been decided and Theresa May needs a policy now
While I voted remain, and regard Clarke as the best Chancellor of my lifetime - so good that his legacy even made Gordon Brown look good for a number of years - I have to agree that there was realistically no way that his uncompromising views on Europe would have allowed him to become leader at that time.
And our joining the euro with his backing would have ruined his legacy.
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2016/09/27/hillary-clinton-endorsement/91198668/
Since The Arizona Republic began publication in 1890, we have never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president. Never. This reflects a deep philosophical appreciation for conservative ideals and Republican principles.
This year is different.
The 2016 Republican candidate is not conservative and he is not qualified
We are likely in for a Hard Brexit because our opening negotiating position will be no free movement of people. At that point, it is up to the EU27 to decide amongst themselves how much of a fudge if any to give us.
He was a brilliant chancellor, who picked up from the debacle of EMU and gave Gordon Brown a golden legacy.
If he'd pre-empted his own success, and slashed taxes in 1996, the tories might have lost by a good deal less.
Today, Ken Clarke is no threat whatsoever so I look on at his arguments with wry amusement.
He can say what he likes, as far as I'm concerned.
The same discontent and reaction is being seen outside the EU, Trump and the US being the obvious case. So surely it is the management of the global economy particularly since the crash: ZIRP & QE boosting the assets of the wealthy; the long trend towards oligarchic capitalism; the small elite of super-powerful/super-rich; the threat from cheap labour as the economy becomes more global - that is fuelling it. None of which is down to the EU (indeed aspects of the EU tend to act as a brake on the trend towards Anglo-American capitalism).
Further, I am yet to be convinced that our leaving the EU will do anything whatsoever to assuage the discontent; indeed it is probable that the discontented may find themselves worse off still.
As for Iraq, he'd have been competing with Charles Kennedy and probably would have split his own party over that too.
If he'd brought down Blair with it, we'd have had Brown 4 years earlier.
Philip Hammond has announced the end of George Osborne's flagship 'Help to Buy' scheme
https://t.co/WA6k0SaU9e
What about this scenario is possibly bad from a Conservative perspective?
She will propose maintenance of free movement for high-income workers in services, together with those with job offers above a certain income level, but demand an end to absolute free movement of citizens and limits/quotas for low-income workers.
All the language has been about how you can't have your cake and eat it, not that you can't have some of the cake if you are willing to share some of it.