Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far no conference or JC re-election bounce for LAB

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited September 2016 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » So far no conference or JC re-election bounce for LAB

TMay's net YouGov "Well/badly" ratings down from +31% on Sep 4 to +24%. By 42% to 26% sample said she "doesn't "care for people like me"

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,364
    edited September 2016
    Thirst?

    Edit: is this a surprise? The public will, as a whole, have made up their mind on Corbyn.
  • GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Second!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited September 2016
    You're looking at this the wrong way Mike.

    Lots of JC on the telly, and Labour didn't go down in the polls.

    An omen for the general election.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    edited September 2016
    30% for Labour, same as when super-Ed was leader!
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    @TheScreamingEagles

    In response to your query on the last thread, I shall plead the 5th.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited September 2016
    It's only the opening shots, and I'm already fed up with the chants of USA! USA! USA!
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    So far no conference or JC re-election dip for LAB, that should say.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    edited September 2016
    FPT
    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Although it was Helmut Schmidt, who did have vision, who said 'people with visions should go and see their doctor.'
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Tissue Price posted this about the early election question.

    Just look at the splits!

    Con
    15% Yes
    76% No

    Lab
    65% Yes
    22% No

    I say us blues reach across party boundaries and give the red team what they want.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    FPT
    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Betting related question.

    Anyone know how Ladbrokes' edit my acca works?

    It cannot be like the way they are advertising it surely?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    You're looking at this the wrong way Mike.

    Lots of JC on the telly, and Labour didn't go down in the polls.

    An omen for the general election.

    Yes, Labour within 9 points at the peak of the Theresa May bubble suggests that it's all to play for in the next election.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    Couple of points. 30% of the people asked still want to see a far left anti-British extremist like Corbyn as PM - worrying. Also, 50% of the people asked said the government was doing a bad job negotiating Brexit. Precisely what is the qualification for that question? NOBODY knows what the negotiations are!! Bizarre.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,228
    JosiasJessop said:

    Thirst?

    Edit: is this a surprise? The public will, as a whole, have made up their mind on Corbyn.

    The whole point of party conferences is to have a bounce, No? If there wasn't even a pulse, that's a Dog that didn't Bark thing, surely?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Someone tell George Galloway there's a trial first.

    GEORGE Galloway has targeted Natalie McGarry’s Glasgow East seat after announcing he’ll stand again for Westminster.

    The ex-Labour and Respect MP is convinced he can beat the SNP in the seat as an independent and campaign against a second Scots referendum.

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/george-galloway-targets-glasgow-east-8945496
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    FPT @ Sunil "Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!"

    I was talking about foreign policy. Since the Great Game, I can't really think of any real UK foreign policy Vision (as opposed to many very effective reaction/response policies), except the retreat from East of Aden. "The winds of change" was a glimpse, not a vision.

    Rising to the bait:

    Rhodes - South African
    Churchill - half American
    Brunel - half French
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Here's a thought, if Galloway hadn't been expelled from Labour in 2003, would he be Labour leader now and not Corbyn?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,228
    Charles said:

    @TheScreamingEagles

    In response to your query on the last thread, I shall plead the 5th.

    Five nuns in a whorehouse? That's going something!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    MTimT said:

    FPT @ Sunil "Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!"

    I was talking about foreign policy. Since the Great Game, I can't really think of any real UK foreign policy Vision (as opposed to many very effective reaction/response policies), except the retreat from East of Aden. "The winds of change" was a glimpse, not a vision.

    Rising to the bait:

    Rhodes - South African
    Churchill - half American
    Brunel - half French

    Racist :)
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,751
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Here's a thought, if Galloway hadn't been expelled from Labour in 2003, would he be Labour leader now and not Corbyn?

    And if Corbyn lets him back in, could he get the job in 2020?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edited September 2016
    williamglenn said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    You're looking at this the wrong way Mike.

    Lots of JC on the telly, and Labour didn't go down in the polls.

    An omen for the general election.

    Yes, Labour within 9 points at the peak of the Theresa May bubble suggests that it's all to play for in the next election.
    Indeed, Gordon Brown was leading by 11% with YouGov during after his conference speech in 2007.

    Theresa May = Pound Shop Gordon Brown
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
    Dr. Ishmael is also a racist!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    :)
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
    Dr. Ishmael is also a racist!
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    edmundintokyo said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Here's a thought, if Galloway hadn't been expelled from Labour in 2003, would he be Labour leader now and not Corbyn?

    And if Corbyn lets him back in, could he get the job in 2020?
    I'll ask Shadsy to price that up
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    williamglenn said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    You're looking at this the wrong way Mike.

    Lots of JC on the telly, and Labour didn't go down in the polls.

    An omen for the general election.

    Yes, Labour within 9 points at the peak of the Theresa May bubble suggests that it's all to play for in the next election.
    Indeed, Gordon Brown was leading by 11% with YouGov during after his conference speech in 2007.

    Theresa May = Pound Shop Gordon Brown
    Theresa hasn't given her conference speech yet!

    Must be your public school thickness :trollface:
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited September 2016
    Theresa May started off by saying she and the new government needed some time to establish their positions on Brexit and on other contentious decisions (Heathrow, Hinkley Point, HS2, possible changes to Osborne's fiscal stance, etc). So far, I think it's fair to say that voters, our EU friends, and business have accepted that as being sensible in the circumstances, but obviously there is a limit to how long that stance is credible. Murmurs of 'dithering' have been heard, although not loudly yet.

    She now needs to move into the next phase of actually making those decisions. In respect of Hinkley Point, she has now done so, after a botched start. There are indications that a final decision on Heathrow is coming soon. Even if those decisions are unpopular with some - and there's no way of pleasing everyone - she will, I think, get political credit, however grudging, for gripping them firmly.

    Brexit, obviously, is the most important and far-reaching of the difficult issues she has to deal with. However, it's an issue which is not in her power to decide on unilaterally, so a further extensive and damaging period of uncertainty is inevitable - at least a year's worth, maybe more. That makes it even more important to show that she has a strong grip on those other contentious issues.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    And climbed over a lot of people to gain a better view of it.
  • Ishmael_XIshmael_X Posts: 3,664
    MTimT said:

    :)

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
    Dr. Ishmael is also a racist!
    No, Dr Prasanan, think it through: you are the one implying that Rhodes was not South African. Is that because he was an immigrant with a different skin colour from the indigenous inhabitants? Dearie me.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    FPT @ Sunil "Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!"

    I was talking about foreign policy. Since the Great Game, I can't really think of any real UK foreign policy Vision (as opposed to many very effective reaction/response policies), except the retreat from East of Aden. "The winds of change" was a glimpse, not a vision.

    Rising to the bait:

    Rhodes - South African
    Churchill - half American
    Brunel - half French

    Racist :)
    But, seriously, a very good argument for at least some immigration. Just what percentage of famous British thought leaders and innovators have at least some foreign blood or long term foreign residency would be an interesting statistic.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,084
    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?
  • JobabobJobabob Posts: 3,807
    Jason said:

    Couple of points. 30% of the people asked still want to see a far left anti-British extremist like Corbyn as PM - worrying. Also, 50% of the people asked said the government was doing a bad job negotiating Brexit. Precisely what is the qualification for that question? NOBODY knows what the negotiations are!! Bizarre.

    There aren't any. Just three bozos clowning around an embarrassing the nation.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    That negotiating Brexit question is a bit of a duffer. We can't start negotiating until A50 has been invoked - and then we've got two years. Maybe some stupid people think we're already negotiating officially. Bit disingenuous of YouGov.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    My pre-qualifying ramble is here:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/malaysia-pre-qualifying.html

    I agree the negotiating question is daft. It's like asking someone if they enjoyed dinner when the ingredients are still being chosen.
  • SquareRootSquareRoot Posts: 7,095
    You Gov are overstating Labour/ 30% cannot be that bonkers can they?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    Ishmael_X said:

    MTimT said:

    :)

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
    Dr. Ishmael is also a racist!
    No, Dr Prasanan, think it through: you are the one implying that Rhodes was not South African. Is that because he was an immigrant with a different skin colour from the indigenous inhabitants? Dearie me.
    I think it's reasonable to conclude that Rhodes didn't view himself as South African:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes
    One of Rhodes's primary motivators in politics and business was his professed belief that the English-speaking peoples were destined to greatness as, to quote his will, "the first race in the world".[3] Under the reasoning that "the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race",[3] he advocated vigorous settler colonialism and ultimately a reformation of the British Empire so that each component would be self-governing and represented in a single parliament in London. Ambitions such as these, juxtaposed with his policies regarding indigenous Africans in the Cape Colony—describing the country's black population as largely "in a state of barbarism", he advocated their governance as a "subject race" and was at the centre of moves to marginalise them politically—have led recent critics to characterise him as a white supremacist and "an architect of apartheid.”

    And would it be entirely unfair to suggest that you're a little confused about the difference between immigrant and self-professed colonialist ?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited September 2016
    So one crazy rumour I've heard is that trump agreed to stick to script and use a teleprompter for six days of the week as long as he was allowed to go off teleprompter on Fridays, maybe that also applies to phone usage given the phenomenal tweets we are seeing that started at 2 in the morning today.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,228
    MTimT said:

    FPT @ Sunil "Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!"

    I was talking about foreign policy. Since the Great Game, I can't really think of any real UK foreign policy Vision (as opposed to many very effective reaction/response policies), except the retreat from East of Aden. "The winds of change" was a glimpse, not a vision.

    Rising to the bait:

    Rhodes - South African
    Churchill - half American
    Brunel - half French

    Ted Heath and the EEC? I know some people see it as delusion rather than vision.
    Tony Blair and international interventionism as a force for good. He was even going on about the Peace of Westphalia at one point.

    In general I agree with you. In particular I can't think of any foreign minister that has made any mark at all. Unlike, say, Dean Acheson and Henry Kissinger in the US or Hans-Dietrich Genscher in Germany. Several Federal Chancellors did stints as FMs beforehand
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    I may not lay off my Hilary position at all.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,084
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    Quite clever if true!
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Nigelb said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    MTimT said:

    :)

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
    Dr. Ishmael is also a racist!
    No, Dr Prasanan, think it through: you are the one implying that Rhodes was not South African. Is that because he was an immigrant with a different skin colour from the indigenous inhabitants? Dearie me.
    I think it's reasonable to conclude that Rhodes didn't view himself as South African:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes
    One of Rhodes's primary motivators in politics and business was his professed belief that the English-speaking peoples were destined to greatness as, to quote his will, "the first race in the world".[3] Under the reasoning that "the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race",[3] he advocated vigorous settler colonialism and ultimately a reformation of the British Empire so that each component would be self-governing and represented in a single parliament in London. Ambitions such as these, juxtaposed with his policies regarding indigenous Africans in the Cape Colony—describing the country's black population as largely "in a state of barbarism", he advocated their governance as a "subject race" and was at the centre of moves to marginalise them politically—have led recent critics to characterise him as a white supremacist and "an architect of apartheid.”

    And would it be entirely unfair to suggest that you're a little confused about the difference between immigrant and self-professed colonialist ?
    Mr B, I think you are taking some light-hearted banter with Dr Prasannan way too seriously.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    Does that make Fox, Davis and BoJo the League of Gentlemen?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    Ishmael_X said:

    MTimT said:

    :)

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
    Dr. Ishmael is also a racist!
    No, Dr Prasanan, think it through: you are the one implying that Rhodes was not South African. Is that because he was an immigrant with a different skin colour from the indigenous inhabitants? Dearie me.
    Yebbut South Africa was UK territory back then!
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Jason said:

    Couple of points. 30% of the people asked still want to see a far left anti-British extremist like Corbyn as PM - worrying. Also, 50% of the people asked said the government was doing a bad job negotiating Brexit. Precisely what is the qualification for that question? NOBODY knows what the negotiations are!! Bizarre.

    Opinion polls, especially when no where near an election, are a cost free way to send a message to your representatives, not to be confused with telling anyone what you really think ;)
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    LEAVE 52%
    REMAIN 48%

    :innocent:
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Theresa May started off by saying she and the new government needed some time to establish their positions on Brexit and on other contentious decisions (Heathrow, Hinkley Point, HS2, possible changes to Osborne's fiscal stance, etc). So far, I think it's fair to say that voters, our EU friends, and business have accepted that as being sensible in the circumstances, but obviously there is a limit to how long that stance is credible. Murmurs of 'dithering' have been heard, although not loudly yet.

    She now needs to move into the next phase of actually making those decisions. In respect of Hinkley Point, she has now done so, after a botched start. There are indications that a final decision on Heathrow is coming soon. Even if those decisions are unpopular with some - and there's no way of pleasing everyone - she will, I think, get political credit, however grudging, for gripping them firmly.

    Brexit, obviously, is the most important and far-reaching of the difficult issues she has to deal with. However, it's an issue which is not in her power to decide on unilaterally, so a further extensive and damaging period of uncertainty is inevitable - at least a year's worth, maybe more. That makes it even more important to show that she has a strong grip on those other contentious issues.

    Anything she says she wants immediately becomes a hostage to fortune and as you say is anyway outwith her power to deliver.

    We all assume border controls (or, as @Casino_Royale would have it, a letter from your employer) are the first non-negotiable but she can't even acknowledge this, given so many other balls are in the air.

    Hence her no running commentary stance. I'm not sure how she gets round it, she must choose between pragmatism cards on the table this is what we want on the one hand, and the huge risk of being skewered politically for broken promises on the other.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    edited September 2016
    SandyRentool said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    Does that make Fox, Davis and BoJo the League of Gentlemen?
    "This is a Local Airport for Local People! There's nothing for you here!"

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p006vm6j
  • IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966
    Jobabob said:

    Jason said:

    Couple of points. 30% of the people asked still want to see a far left anti-British extremist like Corbyn as PM - worrying. Also, 50% of the people asked said the government was doing a bad job negotiating Brexit. Precisely what is the qualification for that question? NOBODY knows what the negotiations are!! Bizarre.

    There aren't any. Just three bozos clowning around an embarrassing the nation.
    Possibly because the PM said she was not going to be giving a running commentary or giving away our negotiating position before the fact, but dont let that stop your bile. Come to think about it we haven't had a hymn of hate of Trump for at least 15 seconds either, your slipping.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    murali_s said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    Quite clever if true!
    This YouGov poll shows the country thinks Davis and Fox are crap.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    FF43 said:

    MTimT said:

    FPT @ Sunil "Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!"

    I was talking about foreign policy. Since the Great Game, I can't really think of any real UK foreign policy Vision (as opposed to many very effective reaction/response policies), except the retreat from East of Aden. "The winds of change" was a glimpse, not a vision.

    Rising to the bait:

    Rhodes - South African
    Churchill - half American
    Brunel - half French

    Ted Heath and the EEC? I know some people see it as delusion rather than vision.
    Tony Blair and international interventionism as a force for good. He was even going on about the Peace of Westphalia at one point.

    In general I agree with you. In particular I can't think of any foreign minister that has made any mark at all. Unlike, say, Dean Acheson and Henry Kissinger in the US or Hans-Dietrich Genscher in Germany. Several Federal Chancellors did stints as FMs beforehand
    Bevin certainly made a mark as FSec, although the pattern was already set to a large extent. It's been extremely rare though to get the necessary combination of (1) a politician with a very powerful independent base appointed as FSec, (2) that politician having an interest in and aptitude for foreign policy, and (3) a prime minister unwilling to become too involved in international matters. The 1945 government, which had a huge domestic reform agenda, was one such but there've been few others. The reality is that modern communications and the summit cycle mean that a PM has to take the lead a lot of the time.
  • 619619 Posts: 1,784
    Number of tweets about a 19 year old feud with a former Ms Universe Donald thinks is fat this week: 6

    Number of tweets about early voting: 0
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    MTimT said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    FPT @ Sunil "Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!"

    I was talking about foreign policy. Since the Great Game, I can't really think of any real UK foreign policy Vision (as opposed to many very effective reaction/response policies), except the retreat from East of Aden. "The winds of change" was a glimpse, not a vision.

    Rising to the bait:

    Rhodes - South African
    Churchill - half American
    Brunel - half French

    Racist :)
    But, seriously, a very good argument for at least some immigration. Just what percentage of famous British thought leaders and innovators have at least some foreign blood or long term foreign residency would be an interesting statistic.
    Well, we all do if you go back far enough.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    TOPPING said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Theresa May started off by saying she and the new government needed some time to establish their positions on Brexit and on other contentious decisions (Heathrow, Hinkley Point, HS2, possible changes to Osborne's fiscal stance, etc). So far, I think it's fair to say that voters, our EU friends, and business have accepted that as being sensible in the circumstances, but obviously there is a limit to how long that stance is credible. Murmurs of 'dithering' have been heard, although not loudly yet.

    She now needs to move into the next phase of actually making those decisions. In respect of Hinkley Point, she has now done so, after a botched start. There are indications that a final decision on Heathrow is coming soon. Even if those decisions are unpopular with some - and there's no way of pleasing everyone - she will, I think, get political credit, however grudging, for gripping them firmly.

    Brexit, obviously, is the most important and far-reaching of the difficult issues she has to deal with. However, it's an issue which is not in her power to decide on unilaterally, so a further extensive and damaging period of uncertainty is inevitable - at least a year's worth, maybe more. That makes it even more important to show that she has a strong grip on those other contentious issues.

    Anything she says she wants immediately becomes a hostage to fortune and as you say is anyway outwith her power to deliver.

    We all assume border controls (or, as @Casino_Royale would have it, a letter from your employer) are the first non-negotiable but she can't even acknowledge this, given so many other balls are in the air.

    Hence her no running commentary stance. I'm not sure how she gets round it, she must choose between pragmatism cards on the table this is what we want on the one hand, and the huge risk of being skewered politically for broken promises on the other.
    How can she negotiate with Europe when at her back are Tory party split several different ways on the EU and willing to knife her at the first opportunity?

    We are at risk of getting a negotiation that is not in the best interest of the country but in the best interest of May surviving as PM.

    For the best interest of the country I think we need a splitting of all the parties and subsequent re-alignment that better matches the choices we need to make.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    It's only the opening shots, and I'm already fed up with the chants of USA! USA! USA!

    Worse are those guys who shout "IN THE HOLE".

    I always seem to get them near me at orgies....
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    FF43 said:

    MTimT said:

    FPT @ Sunil "Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!"

    I was talking about foreign policy. Since the Great Game, I can't really think of any real UK foreign policy Vision (as opposed to many very effective reaction/response policies), except the retreat from East of Aden. "The winds of change" was a glimpse, not a vision.

    Rising to the bait:

    Rhodes - South African
    Churchill - half American
    Brunel - half French

    Ted Heath and the EEC? I know some people see it as delusion rather than vision.
    Tony Blair and international interventionism as a force for good. He was even going on about the Peace of Westphalia at one point.

    In general I agree with you. In particular I can't think of any foreign minister that has made any mark at all. Unlike, say, Dean Acheson and Henry Kissinger in the US or Hans-Dietrich Genscher in Germany. Several Federal Chancellors did stints as FMs beforehand
    Was Heath and the EEC vision, or reaction to his Chancellor's attempts to destroy the British economy and the existing reality of Germany and France growing way faster than the UK?

    I'll grant you that Tony Blair was more visionary re international interventionism.

    30 years ago, when preparing for a promotion board in the FCO, I was asked by the then Head of Middle East Department what Britain's policy towards the Middle East should be. I got a few sentences into what would have been a convoluted response, when he stopped me. 'Tim, we don't have the resources to implement any policy. We can only react.'

    I realized the truth in those words, but I never understood why it should mean that we needn't reflect on what we want. Knowing that, at least we could fashion our responses such that they might steer outcomes in a desired direction.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,242
    Alistair said:

    I may not lay off my Hilary position at all.

    That's what I'm thinking too. I've gone all in on her with my Brexit and TMay winnings. I might just let it ride.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    MTimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    MTimT said:

    :)

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
    Dr. Ishmael is also a racist!
    No, Dr Prasanan, think it through: you are the one implying that Rhodes was not South African. Is that because he was an immigrant with a different skin colour from the indigenous inhabitants? Dearie me.
    I think it's reasonable to conclude that Rhodes didn't view himself as South African:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes
    One of Rhodes's primary motivators in politics and business was his professed belief that the English-speaking peoples were destined to greatness as, to quote his will, "the first race in the world".[3] Under the reasoning that "the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race",[3] he advocated vigorous settler colonialism and ultimately a reformation of the British Empire so that each component would be self-governing and represented in a single parliament in London. Ambitions such as these, juxtaposed with his policies regarding indigenous Africans in the Cape Colony—describing the country's black population as largely "in a state of barbarism", he advocated their governance as a "subject race" and was at the centre of moves to marginalise them politically—have led recent critics to characterise him as a white supremacist and "an architect of apartheid.”

    And would it be entirely unfair to suggest that you're a little confused about the difference between immigrant and self-professed colonialist ?
    Mr B, I think you are taking some light-hearted banter with Dr Prasannan way too seriously.
    You're probably right.
    In my defence, Rhodes is something of a bête noire for me...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505

    The common threat being Poland at the time ?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    Did they tweet on a related subject on August 23rd, I wonder?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    JonathanD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Theresa May started off by saying she and the new government needed some time to establish their positions on Brexit and on other contentious decisions (Heathrow, Hinkley Point, HS2, possible changes to Osborne's fiscal stance, etc). So far, I think it's fair to say that voters, our EU friends, and business have accepted that as being sensible in the circumstances, but obviously there is a limit to how long that stance is credible. Murmurs of 'dithering' have been heard, although not loudly yet.


    Brexit, obviously, is the most important and far-reaching of the difficult issues she has to deal with. However, it's an issue which is not in her power to decide on unilaterally, so a further extensive and damaging period of uncertainty is inevitable - at least a year's worth, maybe more. That makes it even more important to show that she has a strong grip on those other contentious issues.

    Anything she says she wants immediately becomes a hostage to fortune and as you say is anyway outwith her power to deliver.

    We all assume border controls (or, as @Casino_Royale would have it, a letter from your employer) are the first non-negotiable but she can't even acknowledge this, given so many other balls are in the air.

    Hence her no running commentary stance. I'm not sure how she gets round it, she must choose between pragmatism cards on the table this is what we want on the one hand, and the huge risk of being skewered politically for broken promises on the other.
    How can she negotiate with Europe when at her back are Tory party split several different ways on the EU and willing to knife her at the first opportunity?

    We are at risk of getting a negotiation that is not in the best interest of the country but in the best interest of May surviving as PM.

    For the best interest of the country I think we need a splitting of all the parties and subsequent re-alignment that better matches the choices we need to make.
    Well this was my point yesterday; anything short of hard brexit I can't see the bastards doffing their caps, accepting it has all been done with the best of intentions but you can't win them all, and voting it through.

    That's why the Cons supporters saying they don't want an early election I believe are so mistaken. A larger majority not only means she doesn't have to worry about Lab, but that she doesn't have to worry about any rebels.

    The country needs a pragmatic solution that is as good as possible under the circumstances, not a solution dictated by the loons.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505

    TSE - this is a Russian push at the moment related to sanctions against them re Crimea and Ukraine. There argument is that terrorism and the issues of the Middle East are a common threat to Russia and the West, and we should be uniting against that (i.e. lifting sanctions against Russia and ignoring whatever else they are doing we don't like)
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,022
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    Did they tweet on a related subject on August 23rd, I wonder?
    Well that's like throwing a MolotovRibbentrop cocktail at the Russians.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 55,316
    Nigelb said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505

    The common threat being Poland at the time ?
    Czechoslovakia!

    Poland was a year later, when The Russians snuggled up to Hitler.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    david_herdson said:

    MTimT said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    FPT @ Sunil "Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!"

    I was talking about foreign policy. Since the Great Game, I can't really think of any real UK foreign policy Vision (as opposed to many very effective reaction/response policies), except the retreat from East of Aden. "The winds of change" was a glimpse, not a vision.

    Rising to the bait:

    Rhodes - South African
    Churchill - half American
    Brunel - half French

    Racist :)
    But, seriously, a very good argument for at least some immigration. Just what percentage of famous British thought leaders and innovators have at least some foreign blood or long term foreign residency would be an interesting statistic.
    Well, we all do if you go back far enough.
    I was thinking only to the parents.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,751
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    At the very least it buys her some time: She can let them faff around and argue with each other for a couple of years, then dramatically fire them for failing to deliver Brexit. Then she can bring Gove and Priti Patel in and repeat the whole procedure.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,228
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    The boring explanation, I think, is they would be forced to sell whatever they negotiated to the public. As Brexiteers they would have put some thought into how to achieve it (Hadn't DD written something up in ConservativeHome just the week before? )

    It didn't impinge on her consciousness that there were some very tricky jobs to be done first. I don't imagine Theresa May is a stupid woman. She must be saying to herself now, what on earth was I thinking?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    It's a crap theory. If they fail, then by association, May will be remembered as the Worst. Prime. Minister. E-v-v-a-h!!!

    And let's face it, nobody goes into politics to make Gordon Brown look good....
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    Nigelb said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505

    The common threat being Poland at the time ?
    Czechoslovakia!

    Poland was a year later, when The Russians snuggled up to Hitler.
    Indeed - when they actually united against the common threat.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Newt Gingrich: : Alicia Machado Is “The New Benghazi Lie”

    https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/newt-gingrich-alicia-machado-is-the-new-benghazi-lie
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Dr. Prasannan, reminds me of the Yorkshire air sketch. Takes off Leeds-Bradford airport, lands Leeds-Bradford airport. Because if it's not in Yorkshire it's not bloody worth seeing.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,228
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505

    The greatest threat facing the world right now is Russia itself
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505

    You've got to be shitting me.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,838
    Nigelb said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505

    The common threat being Poland at the time ?
    Spot on
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    MarqueeMark said:

    And let's face it, nobody goes into politics to make Gordon Brown look good....

    Ed Balls, Ed Miliband and Shriti Vadera to name a few.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,498
    edited September 2016
    edmundintokyo said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    At the very least it buys her some time: She can let them faff around and argue with each other for a couple of years, then dramatically fire them for failing to deliver Brexit. Then she can bring Gove and Priti Patel in and repeat the whole procedure.
    At what point does 'the buck stops here' principle apply though? Voters already think 'the government' is doing a bad job of Brexit 50-16, how long before rage-filled, Brexity eyes turn to the employer of these grade A doofuses?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,235
    Just to clarify on well meaning comments from the previous thread - I know those by elections are not actually parish council elections; it was just my way of making the point that not only do very few people turnout for local by elections, thereby over highlighting swings of committed voters, they also bear little relation to nationwide Westminster elections or by elections.

    My lovely, but more right wing than Thatcher grandmother votes Lib D in local elections because she thinks they're better councillors locally - but literally laughs at the party nationally.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    TOPPING said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Theresa May started off by saying she and the new government needed some time to establish their positions on Brexit and on other contentious decisions (Heathrow, Hinkley Point, HS2, possible changes to Osborne's fiscal stance, etc). So far, I think it's fair to say that voters, our EU friends, and business have accepted that as being sensible in the circumstances, but obviously there is a limit to how long that stance is credible. Murmurs of 'dithering' have been heard, although not loudly yet.

    She now needs to move into the next phase of actually making those decisions. In respect of Hinkley Point, she has now done so, after a botched start. There are indications that a final decision on Heathrow is coming soon. Even if those decisions are unpopular with some - and there's no way of pleasing everyone - she will, I think, get political credit, however grudging, for gripping them firmly.

    Brexit, obviously, is the most important and far-reaching of the difficult issues she has to deal with. However, it's an issue which is not in her power to decide on unilaterally, so a further extensive and damaging period of uncertainty is inevitable - at least a year's worth, maybe more. That makes it even more important to show that she has a strong grip on those other contentious issues.

    Anything she says she wants immediately becomes a hostage to fortune and as you say is anyway outwith her power to deliver.

    We all assume border controls (or, as @Casino_Royale would have it, a letter from your employer) are the first non-negotiable but she can't even acknowledge this, given so many other balls are in the air.

    Hence her no running commentary stance. I'm not sure how she gets round it, she must choose between pragmatism cards on the table this is what we want on the one hand, and the huge risk of being skewered politically for broken promises on the other.
    As a negotiating strategy, I'd hold off on telling the EU what we want that is negotiable until as late as possible. Let them tell us some of what they want first. But clearly, we have to make a first move.

    This means starting off by saying 'These are the non-negotiable things we must have. Given these, and our (EU/UK) mutual interests, how do you (EU) suggest we proceed to do least damage to these mutual interests?' while making it clear that we are prepared to walk without a deal if the EU says no deal without negotiating the non-negotiables.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    JonathanD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Theresa May started off by saying she and the new government needed some time to establish their positions on Brexit and on other contentious decisions (Heathrow, Hinkley Point, HS2, possible changes to Osborne's fiscal stance, etc). So far, I think it's fair to say that voters, our EU friends, and business have accepted that as being sensible in the circumstances, but obviously there is a limit to how long that stance is credible. Murmurs of 'dithering' have been heard, although not loudly yet.

    She now needs to move into the next phase of actually making those decisions. In respect of Hinkley Point, she has now done so, after a botched start. There are indications that a final decision on Heathrow is coming soon. Even if those decisions are unpopular with some - and there's no way of pleasing everyone - she will, I think, get political credit, however grudging, for gripping them firmly.

    Brexit, obviously, is the most important and far-reaching of the difficult issues she has to deal with. However, it's an issue which is not in her power to decide on unilaterally, so a further extensive and damaging period of uncertainty is inevitable - at least a year's worth, maybe more. That makes it even more important to show that she has a strong grip on those other contentious issues.

    Anything she says she wants immediately becomes a hostage to fortune and as you say is anyway outwith her power to deliver.

    We all assume border controls (or, as @Casino_Royale would have it, a letter from your employer) are the first non-negotiable but she can't even acknowledge this, given so many other balls are in the air.

    Hence her no running commentary stance. I'm not sure how she gets round it, she must choose between pragmatism cards on the table this is what we want on the one hand, and the huge risk of being skewered politically for broken promises on the other.
    How can she negotiate with Europe when at her back are Tory party split several different ways on the EU and willing to knife her at the first opportunity?

    We are at risk of getting a negotiation that is not in the best interest of the country but in the best interest of May surviving as PM.

    For the best interest of the country I think we need a splitting of all the parties and subsequent re-alignment that better matches the choices we need to make.
    Leaving aside that the mechanics of that mean it's simply not going to happen, what does "a splitting of all the parties and subsequent re-alignment that better matches the choices we need to make" mean in practice?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Don't normally push polls, ahem, but here's one to which responses would be most welcome:
    https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/781845030336094208
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505

    that's bleakly hilarious.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    Alistair said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Interesting tweet from the Russian Embassy.

    https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/781811591981461505

    You've got to be shitting me.
    The historical lacuna is even more blatant in the extended text:

    "...September 30 is one of the most tragic dates in the 20th century. On this day in 1938, the Prime Ministers of Great Britain and France Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier met with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Munich and signed a settlement on the transferring to Germany of the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia. The representatives of the latter country were only invited to be coerced into signing the pact. This notorious agreement became known as the Munich Betrayal. Poland and Hungary later occupied more areas of Czechoslovakia.

    What the Munich Betrayal actually meant was the capitulation of the Western European countries in the face of Nazism. Their leaders chose not to join forces with the Soviet Union in the fight against Germany’s National Socialism, and opted instead to appease the aggressor in an attempt to deflect the threat and steer the German war machine to the East. On the same day, September 30, Chamberlain and Hitler signed a declaration of non-aggression, and a similar pact was signed by Ribbentrop and French Foreign Minister Georges Bonnet-Etienne on December 6, 1938.

    The appeasement allowed Hitler to launch the Second World War..."
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Theuniondivvie said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    At the very least it buys her some time: She can let them faff around and argue with each other for a couple of years, then dramatically fire them for failing to deliver Brexit. Then she can bring Gove and Priti Patel in and repeat the whole procedure.
    At what point does 'the buck stops here' principle apply though? Voters already think 'the government' is doing a bad job of Brexit 50-16, how long before rage-filled Brexity eyes turn to the employer of these grade A doofuses?
    The principle of 'ever closer union' has been replaced with 'ever more distant divorce'.
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Theuniondivvie said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    At the very least it buys her some time: She can let them faff around and argue with each other for a couple of years, then dramatically fire them for failing to deliver Brexit. Then she can bring Gove and Priti Patel in and repeat the whole procedure.
    At what point does 'the buck stops here' principle apply though? Voters already think 'the government' is doing a bad job of Brexit 50-16, how long before rage-filled Brexity eyes turn to the employer of these grade A doofuses?
    You're forgetting the other important question - who is better placed to deliver? That is not going to be Corbyn or Fallon.
  • nunununu Posts: 6,024
    If this guy was the Democrat nominee he would be crushing Trump right now. The wwc would be behind him.

    https://youtu.be/tbtAGvLdAdg
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    Any update on Deutsch Bank?
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Nigelb said:

    MTimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    MTimT said:

    :)

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
    Dr. Ishmael is also a racist!
    No, Dr Prasanan, think it through: you are the one implying that Rhodes was not South African. Is that because he was an immigrant with a different skin colour from the indigenous inhabitants? Dearie me.
    I think it's reasonable to conclude that Rhodes didn't view himself as South African:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes
    One of Rhodes's primary motivators in politics and business was his professed belief that the English-speaking peoples were destined to greatness as, to quote his will, "the first race in the world".[3] Under the reasoning that "the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race",[3] he advocated vigorous settler colonialism and ultimately a reformation of the British Empire so that each component would be self-governing and represented in a single parliament in London. Ambitions such as these, juxtaposed with his policies regarding indigenous Africans in the Cape Colony—describing the country's black population as largely "in a state of barbarism", he advocated their governance as a "subject race" and was at the centre of moves to marginalise them politically—have led recent critics to characterise him as a white supremacist and "an architect of apartheid.”

    And would it be entirely unfair to suggest that you're a little confused about the difference between immigrant and self-professed colonialist ?
    Mr B, I think you are taking some light-hearted banter with Dr Prasannan way too seriously.
    You're probably right.
    In my defence, Rhodes is something of a bête noire for me...
    I remember a class in primary school back in the mid-60s, and the teacher explaining how Rhodesia got its name. Even then, the explanation came with an expose off how Rhodes' views were unacceptable in modern society.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    david_herdson said:

    JonathanD said:

    TOPPING said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Theresa May started off by saying she and the new government needed some time to establish their positions on Brexit and on other contentious decisions (Heathrow, Hinkley Point, HS2, possible changes to Osborne's fiscal stance, etc). So far, I think it's fair to say that voters, our EU friends, and business have accepted that as being sensible in the circumstances, but obviously there is a limit to how long that stance is credible. Murmurs of 'dithering' have been heard, although not loudly yet.

    She now needs to move into the next phase of actually making those decisions. In respect of Hinkley Point, she has now done so, after a botched start. There are indications that a final decision on Heathrow is coming soon. Even if those decisions are unpopular with some - and there's no way of pleasing everyone - she will, I think, get political credit, however grudging, for gripping them firmly.

    Brexit, obviously, is the most important and far-reaching of the difficult issues she has to deal with. However, it's an issue which is not in her power to decide on unilaterally, so a further extensive and damaging period of uncertainty is inevitable - at least a year's worth, maybe more. That makes it even more important to show that she has a strong grip on those other contentious issues.

    Anything she says she wants immediately becomes a hostage to fortune and as you say is anyway outwith her power to deliver.

    We all assume border controls (or, as @Casino_Royale would have it, a letter from your employer) are the first non-negotiable but she can't even acknowledge this, given so many other balls are in the air.
    .
    How can she negotiate with Europe when at her back are Tory party split several different ways on the EU and willing to knife her at the first opportunity?

    We are at risk of getting a negotiation that is not in the best interest of the country but in the best interest of May surviving as PM.

    For the best interest of the country I think we need a splitting of all the parties and subsequent re-alignment that better matches the choices we need to make.
    Leaving aside that the mechanics of that mean it's simply not going to happen, what does "a splitting of all the parties and subsequent re-alignment that better matches the choices we need to make" mean in practice?
    Mainly that I don't think 'left' and 'right' really work when talking about international relations and that if Brexit is to be the main source of discussion for the next 10 years, it would be good to have groupings of MPs that are coherent in their view on it.

    Yes you are right that it will never happen though.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Don't normally push polls, ahem, but here's one to which responses would be most welcome:
    https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/781845030336094208

    If it says "Winner of the XXX Prize", that suggest the author has got something about them and might make me take notice. Obv. Nobel prize for literature counts more highly than Richard & Judy book club.

    (Funnily enough, I am currently reading a book by the 2006 Nobel Laureate)
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited September 2016
    MTimT said:

    As a negotiating strategy, I'd hold off on telling the EU what we want that is negotiable until as late as possible. Let them tell us some of what they want first. But clearly, we have to make a first move.

    This means starting off by saying 'These are the non-negotiable things we must have. Given these, and our (EU/UK) mutual interests, how do you (EU) suggest we proceed to do least damage to these mutual interests?' while making it clear that we are prepared to walk without a deal if the EU says no deal without negotiating the non-negotiables.

    Whilst I don't disagree, the big complication is that we are not negotiating with 'the EU' as a coherent body with power to cut a deal. Instead we are engaged in a complex multi-lateral and multi-faceted dance with a hotchpotch of 27 countries, the Commission, and eventually the EU parliament. They don't know what they want, if they did know they wouldn't all want the same thing, and it's unclear what the mechanism for them to reach an agreed position will be.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Can we drop the sanctimony about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? In contrast to Britain, Russia actually was a prime target of Hitler's desire for Lebensraum and they had different choices to make to buy time. Without it the Nazi-Soviet war would have started a few hundred miles further east and may have had a different outcome.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Full Single Market membership backed by Tory MP Ben Howlett. < The Telegraph: Britain needs to stay in the single market in order to make the best of Brexit. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwo-Tv9TE
  • MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Don't normally push polls, ahem, but here's one to which responses would be most welcome:
    https://twitter.com/MorrisF1/status/781845030336094208

    Mr Dancer. Not on twitter, so it would not let me respond. But the witty one-liner for me.
  • Paul_BedfordshirePaul_Bedfordshire Posts: 3,632
    edited September 2016
    MTimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    MTimT said:

    Nigelb said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    MTimT said:

    :)

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    MTimT said:

    Ishmael_X said:

    Sunil_Prasannan said:

    FPT

    MTimT said:

    But, as others have already said, Vision is a very un-British thing.

    Rhodes, Brunel, Churchill, to name but a few, had plenty of vision!
    Emigrated at 17, French, and half American, respectively
    PS Snap. I was a little slow at posting my response as dogs were whining to be let out.
    Dr. Ishmael is also a racist!
    No, Dr Prasanan, think it through: you are the one implying that Rhodes was not South African. Is that because he was an immigrant with a different skin colour from the indigenous inhabitants? Dearie me.
    I think it's reasonable to conclude that Rhodes didn't view himself as South African:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes
    One of Rhodes's primary motivators in politics and business was his professed belief that the English-speaking peoples were destined to greatness as, to quote his will, "the first race in the world".[3] Under the reasoning that "the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race",[3] he advocated vigorous settler colonialism and ultimately a reformation of the British Empire so that each component would be self-governing and represented in a single parliament in London. Ambitions such as these, juxtaposed with his policies regarding indigenous Africans in the Cape Colony—describing the country's black population as largely "in a state of barbarism", he advocated their governance as a "subject race" and was at the centre of moves to marginalise them politically—have led recent critics to characterise him as a white supremacist and "an architect of apartheid.”

    And would it be entirely unfair to suggest that you're a little confused about the difference between immigrant and self-professed colonialist ?
    Mr B, I think you are taking some light-hearted banter with Dr Prasannan way too seriously.
    You're probably right.
    In my defence, Rhodes is something of a bête noire for me...
    I remember a class in primary school back in the mid-60s, and the teacher explaining how Rhodesia got its name. Even then, the explanation came with an expose off how Rhodes' views were unacceptable in modern society.
    There is still a Rhodesia in Nottinghamshire (near worksop) and it has a street called Cecil Close.

    Nottingham is also twinned with Harare (Salisbury) and has the higbest poplulation of Rhodesians Zimbabweans in the UK.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,235
    YellowSubmarine said:

    Full Single Market membership backed by Tory MP Ben Howlett. < The Telegraph: Britain needs to stay in the single market in order to make the best of Brexit. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIwo-Tv9TE

    Wow, he must be one of the youngest Tory MPs.

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,135
    MTimT said:

    TOPPING said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Theresa May started off by saying she and the new government needed some time to establish their positions on Brexit and on other contentious decisions (Heathrow, Hinkley Point, HS2, possible changes to Osborne's fis

    She now needs to move into the next phase of actually making those decisions. In respect of Hinkley Point, she has now done so, after a botched start. There are indications that a final decision on Heathrow is coming soon. Even if those decisions are unpopular with some - and there's no way of pleasing everyone - she will, I think, get political credit, however grudging, for gripping them firmly.

    Brexit, obviously, is the most important and far-reaching of the difficult issues she has to deal with. However, it's an issue which is not in her power to decide on unilaterally, so a further extensive and damaging period of uncertainty is inevitable - at least a year's worth, maybe more. That makes it even more important to show that she has a strong grip on those other contentious issues.

    Anything she says she wants immediately becomes a hostage to fortune and as you say is anyway outwith her power to deliver.

    We all assume border controls (or, as @Casino_Royale would have it, a letter from your employer) are the first non-negotiable but she can't even acknowledge this, given so many other balls are in the air.

    Hence her no running commentary stance. I'm not sure how she gets round it, she must choose between pragmatism cards on the table this is what we want on the one hand, and the huge risk of being skewered politically for broken promises on the other.
    As a negotiating strategy, I'd hold off on telling the EU what we want that is negotiable until as late as possible. Let them tell us some of what they want first. But clearly, we have to make a first move.

    This means starting off by saying 'These are the non-negotiable things we must have. Given these, and our (EU/UK) mutual interests, how do you (EU) suggest we proceed to do least damage to these mutual interests?' while making it clear that we are prepared to walk without a deal if the EU says no deal without negotiating the non-negotiables.
    Yes I agree but...just as we don't know what the EU would say to an immigration red line, neither do we know whether Tezza will actually make immigration a red line.

    As you say, we have to make the first move so hence, I would like these negotiations to be conducted in as much public as possible.

    I think it would be good for us all if our negotiators walk into the room with a clear idea of what the country wants and hence argue tooth and nail for it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,751
    edited September 2016
    Theuniondivvie said:

    edmundintokyo said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    murali_s said:

    Serious question for the day: Who invited Liam Fox back into Government? To say that this guy is anywhere near plans for the future post Brexit is fu*king scary. Don't the powers that be know he's a disgraced politician with dodgy links with war criminals around the World?

    Theresa May.

    The most plausible theory I've heard is that by appointing Fox and Davis is her way of buggering up Brexit, so we never leave.
    At the very least it buys her some time: She can let them faff around and argue with each other for a couple of years, then dramatically fire them for failing to deliver Brexit. Then she can bring Gove and Priti Patel in and repeat the whole procedure.
    At what point does 'the buck stops here' principle apply though? Voters already think 'the government' is doing a bad job of Brexit 50-16, how long before rage-filled, Brexity eyes turn to the employer of these grade A doofuses?
    She's up against Corbyn so the voters don't matter. From now until 2020 all politics is internal Tory politics.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. T, cheers. To clarify, this is for a 'serious' book, so todger jokes are few and far between (although I do have a cross-dressing knight who has possibly the most amusing line I've ever written early in book 2).

    Mr. Rentool, nice idea, but I don't have any prizes... and I gather making them up is frowned upon.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025