politicalbetting
Home› General

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To add to the febrile political mix – next week’s boundary cha

SystemSystem Posts: 12,552
edited October 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » To add to the febrile political mix – next week’s boundary changes cutting 50 MPs

One thing I think is for sure – there’ll be no move to remove the diminished TMay next week. MPs will be mostly focused on the position their own seats and the impact of revised boundary plans.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    1
  • NormNorm Posts: 1,251
    In view of the greatly increased responsibilities of the HoC after Brexit I propose these changes are unceremoniously dumped.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    The chance of these proposals - or any other boundary changes - going through a hung parliament is nil. The next election will be fought in the existing constituencies.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    Equalising constituencies should reduce the number of inner city seats and provide a small net benefit to the Tories which would reduce their reliance on the DUP if the 2017 result was repeated
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    FPT
    JonathanD said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    williamglenn said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    The thing that nobody seems to be pointing out is that as much as we're not building customs facilities in Dover etc in preparation for No Deal, neither are the EU building them in Calais etc

    The EU don't appear to be preparing for No Deal either. Does that mean they have no choice but to give a deal by the same logic as we apparently have no choice?

    The more pertinent point is that it doesn't matter how much we spend on No Deal - we can't be prepared for it unilaterally. If the French and others don't spend the same, then we'd still be left with utter chaos.

    In simple terms, they have us over a barrel.

    They want us to give in and give many tens of billions because they're broke and nobody wants to fill in the incredibly generous sums they were getting from us for years now.
    The £10bn a year net the UK is contributing to the EU is not some vast sum. Its a few hours of EU27 GDP.

    The latest growth figures show the EU booming while the UK is near stagnation. They can easily cover the cost of us leaving themselves. It is not the UKs ace card.
    The EU budget is not EU27 GDP though. The 2017 budget has payments of €134.5 billion - so they're losing net roughly 10% of that budget. That's not an easy fix which is why they're so desperate for us to fill it in so they don't have to.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,937
    In Naples with Royal Princess (no not Kate) and just saw a strapline from Sky saying 74% want Theresa to walk away with only 26% against

    If that is true it turns it's head on the general opinion on here and in the broadcast media
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,703
    FPT: Mr. Sandpit, next year, Alonso may have a chance.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    FPT
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Given the EU's irrationality, I think we should very soon assume that there won't be a trade deal. I was at a Mansion House dinner last night, where the Lord Mayor gave a speech; he repeated the point that the City needs to know what is happening by the end of this year. I'm sure you'd get the same view from a wide range of different industries, from car manufacturing to aviation to farming.

    Therefore, the time will come very soon indeed - we are talking days or single-figure weeks - when really there is no alternative but to give up on the trade deal, and instead accept that the EU doesn't want one. We can then get on with discussing what the EU apparently is prepared to talk about - negotiations on an 'orderly withdrawal' to WTO terms. Clearly we will need a transition deal as part of that, but that should be attainable given that it would cover the black hole in the EU's finances for the remainder of their budget period, and also because they are as unprepared as we are.

    The alternative, of shilly-shallying around until it's too late for anyone to plan anything, is just too risky and would be certain to lead to disruption. The absolute deadline for agreeing a trade deal has to be the end of this year. Since that's impossible, Plan B it will have to be.


    I think the EU will start trade talks at the start of 2018. But certainly if we haven't had signs from the EU that they're prepared to start sensible discussions by the end of the year we'll have to walk away (Jose)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,307
    Norm said:

    In view of the greatly increased responsibilities of the HoC after Brexit I propose these changes are unceremoniously dumped.

    Best get-out argument I've heard!
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    In Naples with Royal Princess (no not Kate) and just saw a strapline from Sky saying 74% want Theresa to walk away with only 26% against

    If that is true it turns it's head on the general opinion on here and in the broadcast media

    PB's Remainers are spinning it that the question is pointless so has got a pointless answer and the poll is skewed by Remainers going for "No Deal" in the hope it'll keep us in the EU with current arrangements.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,040
    It would definitely have been impossible to get the new boundaries though if there had been Lords reform, mainly because the Lords as they are will be a very useful tool for the party whips to have in their arsenal as they try and accommodate all the MPs in a smaller HoC.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,159
    DavidL said:

    The closest analogy I can come up with is the American war of Independence. How did the world's most powerful empire get beaten by a bunch of back woodsmen with hunting rifles? Well, mainly because there was a very significant minority in this country who did not think we should be fighting at all and that the Americans were in the right. So our efforts were undermined and ultimately failed. Until Donald Trump was given the nuclear codes this was not obviously a disaster.

    In this country we had 48% of the vote in favour of remaining. We are hopelessly split as a country about what to do here and it is again undermining our position threatening the worst of all worlds. Alastair Meeks has pointed out that no effort has been made to appease or win over the remain faction. This is undoubtedly true although I suspect in many cases nothing was going to convince them to move on. But putting the negotiations in the hands of prominent Brexiteers was a serious mistake. Getting rid of Hammond would be another. We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.

    Brexit has to be a success or at least tolerable or you cancel it and move on. No deal is not success. Any arrangement with the EU will necessarily be inferior to what we had before, so necessarily the negotiation is about damage limitation. But if Leavers want to see the union flag disappear at Berlaymont, they have to roll with it.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    edited October 2017
    Jeremy Hunt's GP recruitment plan is, on closer examination, almost an exact copy of the successful Welsh NHS programme.

    edit: Wales http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-40248155
    Hunt http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41590429
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,040
    Norm said:

    In view of the greatly increased responsibilities of the HoC after Brexit I propose these changes are unceremoniously dumped.

    I’ve always been in favour of the smaller HoC, which lest us forget came as a result of the MP expenses scandal in 2009. However I think you’re right, post-Brexit it’s probably not the best of ideas to carry through.

    I wonder if someone will propose a vote next week on maintaining the 650-seat House? The poor Boundary Commission staff must be pulling their hair out!
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,175
    GIN1138 said:

    FPT


    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Given the EU's irrationality, I think we should very soon assume that there won't be a trade deal. I was at a Mansion House dinner last night, where the Lord Mayor gave a speech; he repeated the point that the City needs to know what is happening by the end of this year. I'm sure you'd get the same view from a wide range of different industries, from car manufacturing to aviation to farming.

    Therefore, the time will come very soon indeed - we are talking days or single-figure weeks - when really there is no alternative but to give up on the trade deal, and instead accept that the EU doesn't want one. We can then get on with discussing what the EU apparently is prepared to talk about - negotiations on an 'orderly withdrawal' to WTO terms. Clearly we will need a transition deal as part of that, but that should be attainable given that it would cover the black hole in the EU's finances for the remainder of their budget period, and also because they are as unprepared as we are.

    The alternative, of shilly-shallying around until it's too late for anyone to plan anything, is just too risky and would be certain to lead to disruption. The absolute deadline for agreeing a trade deal has to be the end of this year. Since that's impossible, Plan B it will have to be.


    I think the EU will start trade talks at the start of 2018. But certainly if we haven't had signs from the EU that they're prepared to start sensible discussions by the end of the year we'll have to walk away (Jose)
    Yes, 'cake and eat it' will go down with 'end to boom and bust' in the lexicon of egregious political deceptions. It's the likes of Dan Hannan that I feel sorry for. He genuinely thought his opinions meant something.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    HYUFD said:

    Equalising constituencies should reduce the number of inner city seats and provide a small net benefit to the Tories which would reduce their reliance on the DUP if the 2017 result was repeated

    Of course. But the Tory MPs whose seats would disappear will raise objections and the government is in no position to face them down.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047
    Simon Nixon: Legal complexities make transition deal with the EU almost impossible

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/legal-complexities-make-transition-deal-with-the-eu-almost-impossible-wvxfzxsww
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,733
    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,307
    edited October 2017
    anothernick said:

    HYUFD said:

    Equalising constituencies should reduce the number of inner city seats and provide a small net benefit to the Tories which would reduce their reliance on the DUP if the 2017 result was repeated

    Of course. But the Tory MPs whose seats would disappear will raise objections and the government is in no position to face them down.
    But after the June election, there are less of them for Theresa to have to worry about.....

    #LookingOnTheBrightSide
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,938
    edited October 2017
    Stark_Dawning said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT


    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Given the EU's irrationality, I think we should very soon assume that there won't be a trade deal. I was at a Mansion House dinner last night, where the Lord Mayor gave a speech; he repeated the point that the City needs to know what is happening by the end of this year. I'm sure you'd get the same view from a wide range of different industries, from car manufacturing to aviation to farming.

    Therefore, the time will come very soon indeed - we are talking days or single-figure weeks - when really there is no alternative but to give up on the trade deal, and instead accept that the EU doesn't want one. We can then get on with discussing what the EU apparently is prepared to talk about - negotiations on an 'orderly withdrawal' to WTO terms. Clearly we will need a transition deal as part of that, but that should be attainable given that it would cover the black hole in the EU's finances for the remainder of their budget period, and also because they are as unprepared as we are.

    The alternative, of shilly-shallying around until it's too late for anyone to plan anything, is just too risky and would be certain to lead to disruption. The absolute deadline for agreeing a trade deal has to be the end of this year. Since that's impossible, Plan B it will have to be.


    I think the EU will start trade talks at the start of 2018. But certainly if we haven't had signs from the EU that they're prepared to start sensible discussions by the end of the year we'll have to walk away (Jose)
    Yes, 'cake and eat it' will go down with 'end to boom and bust' in the lexicon of egregious political deceptions. It's the likes of Dan Hannan that I feel sorry for. He genuinely thought his opinions meant something.
    Theresa has tried to deliver Hannan the kind of deal he wanted... She's given a LOT of ground to the EU but sadly it seems the EU are more interested in the "project" than coming to mutually beneficial arrangements.

    Thing is the behavior of the EU towards us confirms my suspicions about the whole thing and makes me more convinced than ever that I was right to vote leave and get out of this project while we still can.

    I suspect I'm not alone.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    DavidL said:

    The closest analogy I can come up with is the American war of Independence. How did the world's most powerful empire get beaten by a bunch of back woodsmen with hunting rifles? Well, mainly because there was a very significant minority in this country who did not think we should be fighting at all and that the Americans were in the right. So our efforts were undermined and ultimately failed. Until Donald Trump was given the nuclear codes this was not obviously a disaster.

    In this country we had 48% of the vote in favour of remaining. We are hopelessly split as a country about what to do here and it is again undermining our position threatening the worst of all worlds. Alastair Meeks has pointed out that no effort has been made to appease or win over the remain faction. This is undoubtedly true although I suspect in many cases nothing was going to convince them to move on. But putting the negotiations in the hands of prominent Brexiteers was a serious mistake. Getting rid of Hammond would be another. We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.


    Always a reasonable one is David.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    edited October 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious. It's going through the motions, that's all.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    HYUFD said:

    Equalising constituencies should reduce the number of inner city seats and provide a small net benefit to the Tories which would reduce their reliance on the DUP if the 2017 result was repeated

    This was really Cameron/Osborne adopting GOP-style tactics from America, whose only merit was that they would disadvantage Labour. Predictably it provoked a registration drive, and it turns out that newly-registered voters tend to come from pro-Labour demographies. Net advantage: minimal if any.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    edited October 2017
    williamglenn said:

    Simon Nixon: Legal complexities make transition deal with the EU almost impossible

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/legal-complexities-make-transition-deal-with-the-eu-almost-impossible-wvxfzxsww

    Aren't we always being told on other legal issues, such as uncertainty over legality of A50 being revoked, that political solutions will always be found?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/joemurphylondon/status/918441846459830272
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,937
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    Jeremy Hunt's GP recruitment plan is, on closer examination, almost an exact copy of the successful Welsh NHS programme.

    edit: Wales http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-40248155
    Hunt http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41590429

    Wales NHS and success do not go together. It is worse than England under Welsh Labour

    Even personally I have been waiting since July 2016 for a bi-lateral hernia op and only now have they suggested it may be in November
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    In Naples with Royal Princess (no not Kate) and just saw a strapline from Sky saying 74% want Theresa to walk away with only 26% against

    If that is true it turns it's head on the general opinion on here and in the broadcast media

    It is the caSE, it seems, that the public are much more on board with no deal than a bad deal, but that doesn't mean they won't punish someone who delivers no deal.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Another good day for Project Reality. Curiously I'm an optimist in that #1 We're so deeply rooted in the eurosphere and those roots make so much sense inertia will be a powerful force towards a deal. #2 The eurosphere is so deep and so flexible the number of possible deals available is almost endless.

    But the whole thing is about harm reduction. With every passing day the fantasy offered to voters endorsed very narrowly by a nasty spasm of populist ethnonationalism evaporates further. So we keep on buggering on. Moving the line of eventual compromise towards sanity. We must hope for a Dunkirk Brexit. A sucessful enough evacuation for us to mythologise as a sucess. If not it's a Suez Brexit.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Crush the saboteurs!

    https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/918442619616747520
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Austerity. Fewer MPs = Smaller cost.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    Wasn't it basically because it will cut more Labour seats than Tory?

    I think it's daft to 'equalise' based on registered voters, rather than by population. MPs for poorer areas (where voter registration is lower) will end up being responsible for more people who still need time, attention, resources regardless of whether they're on the register or not.

    If we want votes to be proportional, change the voting system rather than tinker about with boundaries that are out of date the second they're drawn up even by their own metrics anyway...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    For those complaining that 600 MPs is too few it is worth remembering that the US House of Representatives has 435 members. Contrast too the Lords with the Senate which has 100 members. The entire US Congress is smaller than the Commons is proposed to be.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Yes, that was political justification. But it's not harmful and as I said the boundaries are out of date, so it's worth doing. As it is, the reductio will now scupper things.
  • YellowSubmarineYellowSubmarine Posts: 2,740
    Hunt's GP plan is to offer immigrants an extra £20K pa to attract them to Leave voting areas.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    anothernick said:

    HYUFD said:

    Equalising constituencies should reduce the number of inner city seats and provide a small net benefit to the Tories which would reduce their reliance on the DUP if the 2017 result was repeated

    Of course. But the Tory MPs whose seats would disappear will raise objections and the government is in no position to face them down.
    I agree the plans are unlikely to get through
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,937
    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    In Naples with Royal Princess (no not Kate) and just saw a strapline from Sky saying 74% want Theresa to walk away with only 26% against

    If that is true it turns it's head on the general opinion on here and in the broadcast media

    It is the caSE, it seems, that the public are much more on board with no deal than a bad deal, but that doesn't mean they won't punish someone who delivers no deal.
    Depends on who they blame and right now it looks like the EU
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    How do Leave voters here feel about Nigel Farage these days? I can't believe his chutzpah, after campaigning for so long for Brexit, to go off on an American jolly at a critical moment and contributing nothing to the substantial issue of making Brexit work. It's as if Lenin had pissed off immediately after proclaiming Soviet power.

    And how's that fantastic moustache of his doing?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,446
    DecrepitJohnL said:

    HYUFD said:

    Equalising constituencies should reduce the number of inner city seats and provide a small net benefit to the Tories which would reduce their reliance on the DUP if the 2017 result was repeated

    This was really Cameron/Osborne adopting GOP-style tactics from America, whose only merit was that they would disadvantage Labour. Predictably it provoked a registration drive, and it turns out that newly-registered voters tend to come from pro-Labour demographies. Net advantage: minimal if any.
    Still would likely be a small net advantage to the Tories especially the loss of 25% of Welsh seats given Labour did particularly well in Wales in June
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Austerity. Fewer MPs = Smaller cost.
    I don't really have an opinion on the correct number of MPs, but that does seem like a lot of political pain for what must be an almost meaningless financial gain
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,714
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    The closest analogy I can come up with is the American war of Independence. How did the world's most powerful empire get beaten by a bunch of back woodsmen with hunting rifles? Well, mainly because there was a very significant minority in this country who did not think we should be fighting at all and that the Americans were in the right. So our efforts were undermined and ultimately failed. Until Donald Trump was given the nuclear codes this was not obviously a disaster.

    In this country we had 48% of the vote in favour of remaining. We are hopelessly split as a country about what to do here and it is again undermining our position threatening the worst of all worlds. Alastair Meeks has pointed out that no effort has been made to appease or win over the remain faction. This is undoubtedly true although I suspect in many cases nothing was going to convince them to move on. But putting the negotiations in the hands of prominent Brexiteers was a serious mistake. Getting rid of Hammond would be another. We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.

    Brexit has to be a success or at least tolerable or you cancel it and move on. No deal is not success. Any arrangement with the EU will necessarily be inferior to what we had before, so necessarily the negotiation is about damage limitation. But if Leavers want to see the union flag disappear at Berlaymont, they have to roll with it.

    The question is how we get a good deal with the EU. We do that by having an alternative. If we do not have an alternative we will have to choose between a bad deal and staying in (although god knows why the EU27 would want a member who would be bloody furious and not minded to agree to anything else, ever).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047
    Scott_P said:

    Crush the saboteurs!

    https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/918443192487256064
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,714
    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Because they are all greedy bastards and reducing the number of greedy bastards in the trough was thought to appease those angry with them. Gesture politics at its most futile really.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    edited October 2017
    Stereotomy said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Austerity. Fewer MPs = Smaller cost.
    I don't really have an opinion on the correct number of MPs, but that does seem like a lot of political pain for what must be an almost meaningless financial gain
    Yes, but having gone down the path this far we might as well finish it, but we won't, meaning those poor buggers st the boundary commission or whatever have been wasting years on this.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    DavidL said:

    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Because they are all greedy bastards and reducing the number of greedy bastards in the trough was thought to appease those angry with them. Gesture politics at its most futile really.
    I recall the lds wanted it down to 500 I think? Labour presumably had their own number.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    I see the EU is continuing it's obstructive "can only talk about half the issues" stance. This, more than anything else, is preventing the obvious cash for access deal.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    edited October 2017
    Here we go
    https://twitter.com/joepike/status/918444984424189953
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047
    https://twitter.com/Raphael_Hogarth/status/918443885239701504
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    YellowSubmarine said:

    Another good day for Project Reality. Curiously I'm an optimist in that #1 We're so deeply rooted in the eurosphere and those roots make so much sense inertia will be a powerful force towards a deal. #2 The eurosphere is so deep and so flexible the number of possible deals available is almost endless.

    You are making the case for Brexit here - if leaving is difficult now, it could be impossible in 10 years time.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,714
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Because they are all greedy bastards and reducing the number of greedy bastards in the trough was thought to appease those angry with them. Gesture politics at its most futile really.
    I recall the lds wanted it down to 500 I think? Labour presumably had their own number.
    I think TSE wanted it down to 1. Him. Maybe doesn't fancy it so much these days.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/guitarmoog/status/918425553421598720
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,175
    The Leavers have now completely abandoned the notion that any trading arrangements with the EU are possible or even desirable. I'm interested to know if the economic beneficence of Brexit is still being touted, or is that also up for grabs?
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,591
    Winstanley said:

    How do Leave voters here feel about Nigel Farage these days? I can't believe his chutzpah, after campaigning for so long for Brexit, to go off on an American jolly at a critical moment and contributing nothing to the substantial issue of making Brexit work. It's as if Lenin had pissed off immediately after proclaiming Soviet power.

    And how's that fantastic moustache of his doing?

    Farage's stock in trade is scapegoating and sloganising. He has no interest in the hard graft of making things work.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,881
    williamglenn said:

    Scott_P said:

    Crush the saboteurs!

    https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/918443192487256064
    Lawson being an utterly disinterested observer giving us the benefit of his impartial assessment ...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Surely this can be filed under Not Going To Happen?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    williamglenn said:

    https://twitter.com/Raphael_Hogarth/status/918443885239701504

    Given the current cabinet, expect to hear leaks on how divided the board is.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    Winstanley said:

    How do Leave voters here feel about Nigel Farage these days? I can't believe his chutzpah, after campaigning for so long for Brexit, to go off on an American jolly at a critical moment and contributing nothing to the substantial issue of making Brexit work. It's as if Lenin had pissed off immediately after proclaiming Soviet power.

    And how's that fantastic moustache of his doing?

    I have long been vocal as an opponent of Farage within UKIP and in the wider debate. He served a very useful role early on in the campaign to leave the EU and deserves our thanks for that. But once the decision had been made for a referendum he became a liability. I am actually glad he is now no longer appearing all over our screens as part of this debate as I don't think he would add anything of substance.

    Once Brexit has been completed I also see no further point to UKIP.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,159
    edited October 2017
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    The closest analogy I can come up with is the American war of Independence. How did the world's most powerful empire get beaten by a bunch of back woodsmen with hunting rifles? Well, mainly because there was a very significant minority in this country who did not think we should be fighting at all and that the Americans were in the right. So our efforts were undermined and ultimately failed. Until Donald Trump was given the nuclear codes this was not obviously a disaster.

    In this country we had 48% of the vote in favour of remaining. We are hopelessly split as a country about what to do here and it is again undermining our position threatening the worst of all worlds. Alastair Meeks has pointed out that no effort has been made to appease or win over the remain faction. This is undoubtedly true although I suspect in many cases nothing was going to convince them to move on. But putting the negotiations in the hands of prominent Brexiteers was a serious mistake. Getting rid of Hammond would be another. We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.

    Brexit has to be a success or at least tolerable or you cancel it and move on. No deal is not success. Any arrangement with the EU will necessarily be inferior to what we had before, so necessarily the negotiation is about damage limitation. But if Leavers want to see the union flag disappear at Berlaymont, they have to roll with it.

    The question is how we get a good deal with the EU. We do that by having an alternative. If we do not have an alternative we will have to choose between a bad deal and staying in (although god knows why the EU27 would want a member who would be bloody furious and not minded to agree to anything else, ever).
    Step by step. The current step is to get through withdrawal while keeping things as close as possible to what we already have for a limited period. It's citizens rights, Irish border fudge and a chunk of money in exchange for a time limited "transition" - actually a partial extension. It's not difficult because it basically comes down to money. Longer term discussions come later. Talk of walking away wastes time and increases the probability of Brexit failure, which surely isn't in the Leaver interest and shouldn't be in the Remainer one either. We don't always do the rational thing but I think we will probably agree to release the money.

    And PS if we don't do it now we will do it later, which ought to encourage us to get on with it.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,551
    Forget the boundary review. The Commission will present its plans, parliament will thank them and put them away in a locked box.

    On Brexit of course talks will fail - we're asking for things that the EU cannot offer. Which leaves us with a spread of unpalatable options:
    1. A hard Brexit falling back onto WTO. With all the difficulties in setting ourselves up independently from the EU, the pain the EU will impose with a hard border and customs checks etc. What many Tories want but will literally be an extinction level event for any politician/party associated with it
    2. EFTA - if we can negotiate our way back in quickly enough. Politically toxic for both remain and leave in different ways
    3. And endless "transition" where we kick the can further down the road. Brexit people will go crazy the longer it drags on, especially with business demanding that the "temporary" EEA membership becomes permanent. Likely to fuel the rise of hard nationalist "no surrender (to the EU)" style parties
    4. Facing the reality that all the alternatives to the EU are worse we decide not to leave. As with option 3 I expect a significant switch to nationalist hard right parties from people convinced they have been betrayed.

    I voted leave, I support EFTA/EEA as the way forward. And it still feels like the least worst solution. Which is why we won't do it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,714
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Surely this can be filed under Not Going To Happen?

    Its a measure of the political incompetence of our PM that it has got to this point when any step back is going to be "humiliating" and further undermine what remains of her authority.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Forget the boundary review. The Commission will present its plans, parliament will thank them and put them away in a locked box.

    On Brexit of course talks will fail - we're asking for things that the EU cannot offer. Which leaves us with a spread of unpalatable options:
    1. A hard Brexit falling back onto WTO. With all the difficulties in setting ourselves up independently from the EU, the pain the EU will impose with a hard border and customs checks etc. What many Tories want but will literally be an extinction level event for any politician/party associated with it
    2. EFTA - if we can negotiate our way back in quickly enough. Politically toxic for both remain and leave in different ways
    3. And endless "transition" where we kick the can further down the road. Brexit people will go crazy the longer it drags on, especially with business demanding that the "temporary" EEA membership becomes permanent. Likely to fuel the rise of hard nationalist "no surrender (to the EU)" style parties
    4. Facing the reality that all the alternatives to the EU are worse we decide not to leave. As with option 3 I expect a significant switch to nationalist hard right parties from people convinced they have been betrayed.

    I voted leave, I support EFTA/EEA as the way forward. And it still feels like the least worst solution. Which is why we won't do it.

    What are we asking for that the EU can't deliver?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,881
    kle4 said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    In Naples with Royal Princess (no not Kate) and just saw a strapline from Sky saying 74% want Theresa to walk away with only 26% against

    If that is true it turns it's head on the general opinion on here and in the broadcast media

    It is the caSE, it seems, that the public are much more on board with no deal than a bad deal, but that doesn't mean they won't punish someone who delivers no deal.
    The poll is the equivalent of saying 'would you like nothing, or something bad ?'
    I don't think it tells us much either way about the likely reaction of the electorate to a no deal Brexit - particularly as no one, not even on this august platform, seems to be able to agree on the likely consequences of no deal.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Simon Nixon: Legal complexities make transition deal with the EU almost impossible

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/legal-complexities-make-transition-deal-with-the-eu-almost-impossible-wvxfzxsww

    Aren't we always being told on other legal issues, such as uncertainty over legality of A50 being revoked, that political solutions will always be found?
    Yep. When it is anything that would help Brexit it is always impossible but when it is anything that might hinder it of course a political solution will be found. Typical mendacious Remainiacs.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    DavidL said:

    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Because they are all greedy bastards and reducing the number of greedy bastards in the trough was thought to appease those angry with them. Gesture politics at its most futile really.
    I recall the lds wanted it down to 500 I think? Labour presumably had their own number.
    I think TSE wanted it down to 1. Him. Maybe doesn't fancy it so much these days.
    Nope. I’ll wait until after Brexit has happened.

    I’m a democrat, but I couldn’t trash the economy to deliver Brexit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,881
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Simon Nixon: Legal complexities make transition deal with the EU almost impossible

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/legal-complexities-make-transition-deal-with-the-eu-almost-impossible-wvxfzxsww

    Aren't we always being told on other legal issues, such as uncertainty over legality of A50 being revoked, that political solutions will always be found?
    Yep. When it is anything that would help Brexit it is always impossible but when it is anything that might hinder it of course a political solution will be found. Typical mendacious Remainiacs.
    I had the impression that the amount of wishful thinking on either side is pretty similar.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,714
    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    The closest analogy I can come up with is the American war of Independence. How did the world's most powerful empire get beaten by a bunch of back woodsmen with hunting rifles? Well, mainly because there was a very significant minority in this country who did not think we should be fighting at all and that the Americans were in the right. So our efforts were undermined and ultimately failed. Until Donald Trump was given the nuclear codes this was not obviously a disaster.

    In this country we had 48% of the vote in favour of remaining. We are hopelessly split as a country about what to do here and it is again undermining our position threatening the worst of all worlds. Alastair Meeks has pointed out that no effort has been made to appease or win over the remain faction. This is undoubtedly true although I suspect in many cases nothing was going to convince them to move on. But putting the negotiations in the hands of prominent Brexiteers was a serious mistake. Getting rid of Hammond would be another. We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.

    Brexit has to be a success or at least tolerable or you cancel it and move on. No deal is not success. Any arrangement with the EU will necessarily be inferior to what we had before, so necessarily the negotiation is about damage limitation. But if Leavers want to see the union flag disappear at Berlaymont, they have to roll with it.

    The question is how we get a good deal with the EU. We do that by having an alternative. If we do not have an alternative we will have to choose between a bad deal and staying in (although god knows why the EU27 would want a member who would be bloody furious and not minded to agree to anything else, ever).
    Step by step. The current step is to get through withdrawal while keeping things as close as possible to what we already have for a limited period. It's citizens rights, Irish border fudge and a chunk of money in exchange for a time limited "transition" - actually a partial extension. It's not difficult because it basically comes down to money. Longer term discussions come later. Talk of walking away wastes time and increases the probability of Brexit failure, which surely isn't in the Leaver interest and shouldn't be in the Remainer one either. We don't always do the rational thing but I think we will probably agree to release the money.
    I completely agree with the first part. That is exactly what we should be aiming for. But I disagree with the second part. My experience is that negotiations only succeed when both parties realise that the other side has a choice, no matter how unpalatable, and something to trade.
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    https://twitter.com/lizrawlings/status/918443003538280449
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Stark_Dawning said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT


    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Given the EU's irrationality, I think we should very soon assume that there won't be a trade deal. I was at a Mansion House dinner last night, where the Lord Mayor gave a speech; he repeated the point that the City needs to know what is happening by the end of this year. I'm sure you'd get the same view from a wide range of different industries, from car manufacturing to aviation to farming.

    Therefore, the time will come very soon indeed - we are talking days or single-figure weeks - when really there is no alternative but to give up on the trade deal, and instead accept that the EU doesn't want one. We can then get on with discussing what the EU apparently is prepared to talk about - negotiations on an 'orderly withdrawal' to WTO terms. Clearly we will need a transition deal as part of that, but that should be attainable given that it would cover the black hole in the EU's finances for the remainder of their budget period, and also because they are as unprepared as we are.

    The alternative, of shilly-shallying around until it's too late for anyone to plan anything, is just too risky and would be certain to lead to disruption. The absolute deadline for agreeing a trade deal has to be the end of this year. Since that's impossible, Plan B it will have to be.


    I think the EU will start trade talks at the start of 2018. But certainly if we haven't had signs from the EU that they're prepared to start sensible discussions by the end of the year we'll have to walk away (Jose)
    Yes, 'cake and eat it' will go down with 'end to boom and bust' in the lexicon of egregious political deceptions. It's the likes of Dan Hannan that I feel sorry for. He genuinely thought his opinions meant something.
    Look, absolutely nobody is saying that Daniel Hannan is a washed-up old has-been whose views count for nothing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    edited October 2017
    Nigelb said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    kle4 said:

    williamglenn said:

    Simon Nixon: Legal complexities make transition deal with the EU almost impossible

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/legal-complexities-make-transition-deal-with-the-eu-almost-impossible-wvxfzxsww

    Aren't we always being told on other legal issues, such as uncertainty over legality of A50 being revoked, that political solutions will always be found?
    Yep. When it is anything that would help Brexit it is always impossible but when it is anything that might hinder it of course a political solution will be found. Typical mendacious Remainiacs.
    I had the impression that the amount of wishful thinking on either side is pretty similar.
    One may well be more so than the other, but it isn't all on one side. Paricularly when contradictory arguments are old friends to us all.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    This isn’t going to happen.

    The DUP aren’t going to vote for it.

    Mrs May really shit the bed in June, if she had any sense of shame or decency she’d have done a Captain Oates.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    If we had a small recession after Brexit before bouncing back quickly to growth and surpassing the pre-recession peak, would PB's Remainers still class that as trashing the economy?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,819
    DavidL said:

    The closest analogy I can come up with is the American war of Independence. How did the world's most powerful empire get beaten by a bunch of back woodsmen with hunting rifles? Well, mainly because there was a very significant minority in this country who did not think we should be fighting at all and that the Americans were in the right. So our efforts were undermined and ultimately failed. Until Donald Trump was given the nuclear codes this was not obviously a disaster.

    In this country we had 48% of the vote in favour of remaining. We are hopelessly split as a country about what to do here and it is again undermining our position threatening the worst of all worlds. Alastair Meeks has pointed out that no effort has been made to appease or win over the remain faction. This is undoubtedly true although I suspect in many cases nothing was going to convince them to move on. But putting the negotiations in the hands of prominent Brexiteers was a serious mistake. Getting rid of Hammond would be another. We need to come together as a country to sort this out, not bicker amongst ourselves.

    "Come together as a country to sort it out" - no.

    The problem is and always been the Conservative Party. The referendum itself was cooked up by Cameron as a way of shoring up the Conservative vote from UKIP and it succeeded.

    Cameron may not have expected to win his majority - perhaps he hoped for Coalition 2.0 - but the LDs were crushed and he had to implement the Referendum he had promised. Perhaps he thought he could win that by the strength of his charisma, personality and popular appeal but he crashed and burned just as Nick Clegg did with AV.

    With his departure, a sensible leader would have made this a cross-party non-partisan exercise inviting the best from all sides (including REMAIN) to come together to craft the best deal for our country.

    That didn't happen - instead, part of the Conservative Party decided they would own and control the process completely and spent months telling us not to worry our little heads about it but "trust Theresa". When it turned out we didn't and time and money was wasted on a futile GE we've found ourselves seven months down a twenty-four month road and, platitudes aside, we have the sum total of bugger all.

    My error was not to vote LEAVE but to assume those who would find themselves in power would have the interests of the nation at heart rather than their own squalid party political machinations.




  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Stereotomy said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Austerity. Fewer MPs = Smaller cost.
    I don't really have an opinion on the correct number of MPs, but that does seem like a lot of political pain for what must be an almost meaningless financial gain
    You could in isolation say that about all financial cuts but added together they add up.
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    Elliot said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Forget the boundary review. The Commission will present its plans, parliament will thank them and put them away in a locked box.

    On Brexit of course talks will fail - we're asking for things that the EU cannot offer. Which leaves us with a spread of unpalatable options:
    1. A hard Brexit falling back onto WTO. With all the difficulties in setting ourselves up independently from the EU, the pain the EU will impose with a hard border and customs checks etc. What many Tories want but will literally be an extinction level event for any politician/party associated with it
    2. EFTA - if we can negotiate our way back in quickly enough. Politically toxic for both remain and leave in different ways
    3. And endless "transition" where we kick the can further down the road. Brexit people will go crazy the longer it drags on, especially with business demanding that the "temporary" EEA membership becomes permanent. Likely to fuel the rise of hard nationalist "no surrender (to the EU)" style parties
    4. Facing the reality that all the alternatives to the EU are worse we decide not to leave. As with option 3 I expect a significant switch to nationalist hard right parties from people convinced they have been betrayed.

    I voted leave, I support EFTA/EEA as the way forward. And it still feels like the least worst solution. Which is why we won't do it.

    What are we asking for that the EU can't deliver?
    Nothing - problem is they won't. Getting agreement to depart from their position when 27 nations and the European Parliament directed by the federalist fanatic Guy Verhofstadt have to accept it is nigh on impossible.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Elliot said:

    If we had a small recession after Brexit before bouncing back quickly to growth and surpassing the pre-recession peak, would PB's Remainers still class that as trashing the economy?

    Right at the moment Leavers are preparing to claim anything short of food riots and troops on the street as a magnificent Brexit success.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    stodge said:



    My error was not to vote LEAVE but to assume those who would find themselves in power would have the interests of the nation at heart rather than their own squalid party political machinations.




    Given that this was an inevitable consequence of voting Leave in the circumstances that existed last June, this is a distinction without a difference.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    Elliot said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    Forget the boundary review. The Commission will present its plans, parliament will thank them and put them away in a locked box.

    On Brexit of course talks will fail - we're asking for things that the EU cannot offer. Which leaves us with a spread of unpalatable options:
    1. A hard Brexit falling back onto WTO. With all the difficulties in setting ourselves up independently from the EU, the pain the EU will impose with a hard border and customs checks etc. What many Tories want but will literally be an extinction level event for any politician/party associated with it
    2. EFTA - if we can negotiate our way back in quickly enough. Politically toxic for both remain and leave in different ways
    3. And endless "transition" where we kick the can further down the road. Brexit people will go crazy the longer it drags on, especially with business demanding that the "temporary" EEA membership becomes permanent. Likely to fuel the rise of hard nationalist "no surrender (to the EU)" style parties
    4. Facing the reality that all the alternatives to the EU are worse we decide not to leave. As with option 3 I expect a significant switch to nationalist hard right parties from people convinced they have been betrayed.

    I voted leave, I support EFTA/EEA as the way forward. And it still feels like the least worst solution. Which is why we won't do it.

    What are we asking for that the EU can't deliver?
    Primarily Single Market but without one of the four pillars. We are asking them to tear down one of the most fundamental principles of their project. It is a complete non starter. This is what happens when you have a Remainer in charge.

    Nixon in China, Thatcher and Reagan with the USSR. The way to get agreement is when you can make concessions/extend the hand of friendship safely from a place of ideological purity. Having someone who knows they are already suspected of being a sell out in charge means they are unwilling to make even the most sensible concessions.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,307
    calum said:

    Here we go
    https://twitter.com/joepike/status/918444984424189953

    Corbyn could still have spoilt his ballot and voted Leave too, without actually lying....
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,159
    RochdalePioneers said:

    Forget the boundary review. The Commission will present its plans, parliament will thank them and put them away in a locked box.

    On Brexit of course talks will fail - we're asking for things that the EU cannot offer. Which leaves us with a spread of unpalatable options:
    1. A hard Brexit falling back onto WTO. With all the difficulties in setting ourselves up independently from the EU, the pain the EU will impose with a hard border and customs checks etc. What many Tories want but will literally be an extinction level event for any politician/party associated with it
    2. EFTA - if we can negotiate our way back in quickly enough. Politically toxic for both remain and leave in different ways
    3. And endless "transition" where we kick the can further down the road. Brexit people will go crazy the longer it drags on, especially with business demanding that the "temporary" EEA membership becomes permanent. Likely to fuel the rise of hard nationalist "no surrender (to the EU)" style parties
    4. Facing the reality that all the alternatives to the EU are worse we decide not to leave. As with option 3 I expect a significant switch to nationalist hard right parties from people convinced they have been betrayed.

    I voted leave, I support EFTA/EEA as the way forward. And it still feels like the least worst solution. Which is why we won't do it.

    I think it will be 2, EFTA/EEA or equivalent. (Having somewhat moved my expectation from 3).

    The way to sell EEA is to Leavers: "We have left the EU and it's good. Nothing much has changed." To Remainers: "We have left the EU but fortunately nothing much has changed."
  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    https://twitter.com/joepike/status/918447792850374662
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    anothernick said:

    Winstanley said:

    How do Leave voters here feel about Nigel Farage these days? I can't believe his chutzpah, after campaigning for so long for Brexit, to go off on an American jolly at a critical moment and contributing nothing to the substantial issue of making Brexit work. It's as if Lenin had pissed off immediately after proclaiming Soviet power.

    And how's that fantastic moustache of his doing?

    Farage's stock in trade is scapegoating and sloganising. He has no interest in the hard graft of making things work.
    anothernick said:

    Winstanley said:

    How do Leave voters here feel about Nigel Farage these days? I can't believe his chutzpah, after campaigning for so long for Brexit, to go off on an American jolly at a critical moment and contributing nothing to the substantial issue of making Brexit work. It's as if Lenin had pissed off immediately after proclaiming Soviet power.

    And how's that fantastic moustache of his doing?

    Farage's stock in trade is scapegoating and sloganising. He has no interest in the hard graft of making things work.
    Isn't that Labour's position too on Brexit - which varies weekly. Farage beyond his one vote in the EU parliament on any deal has no ability to influence the outcome - Labour does - he is just a commentator and radio presenter and has no role in making any of this work.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    Nigelb said:

    williamglenn said:

    Scott_P said:

    Crush the saboteurs!

    https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/918443192487256064
    Lawson being an utterly disinterested observer giving us the benefit of his impartial assessment ...
    Doesn't make him wrong.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,175
    Elliot said:

    If we had a small recession after Brexit before bouncing back quickly to growth and surpassing the pre-recession peak, would PB's Remainers still class that as trashing the economy?

    Surely Leavers would regard a small recession as a failure. They're now craving a ten-year whopping one to bring about a 'cultural revolution'.

    http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/i-dont-like-this-brexit-but-i-will-live.html
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    Recidivist said:

    Stark_Dawning said:

    GIN1138 said:

    FPT


    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Given the EU's irrationality, I think we should very soon assume that there won't be a trade deal. I was at a Mansion House dinner last night, where the Lord Mayor gave a speech; he repeated the point that the City needs to know what is happening by the end of this year. I'm sure you'd get the same view from a wide range of different industries, from car manufacturing to aviation to farming.

    Therefore, the time will come very soon indeed - we are talking days or single-figure weeks - when really there is no alternative but to give up on the trade deal, and instead accept that the EU doesn't want one. We can then get on with discussing what the EU apparently is prepared to talk about - negotiations on an 'orderly withdrawal' to WTO terms. Clearly we will need a transition deal as part of that, but that should be attainable given that it would cover the black hole in the EU's finances for the remainder of their budget period, and also because they are as unprepared as we are.

    The alternative, of shilly-shallying around until it's too late for anyone to plan anything, is just too risky and would be certain to lead to disruption. The absolute deadline for agreeing a trade deal has to be the end of this year. Since that's impossible, Plan B it will have to be.


    I think the EU will start trade talks at the start of 2018. But certainly if we haven't had signs from the EU that they're prepared to start sensible discussions by the end of the year we'll have to walk away (Jose)
    Yes, 'cake and eat it' will go down with 'end to boom and bust' in the lexicon of egregious political deceptions. It's the likes of Dan Hannan that I feel sorry for. He genuinely thought his opinions meant something.
    Look, absolutely nobody is saying that Daniel Hannan is a washed-up old has-been whose views count for nothing.
    Well they certainly count for a lot more than yours.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    calum said:

    https://twitter.com/joepike/status/918447792850374662

    He's consistent on that policy at least, but given politicians love to hypothesise about what their opponents plan, or the impact of policies, why not clarify what to do if getting people to stand trial is not a realistic option. I want world peace, but it doesn't betray that to consider a potential action in the event I cannot achieve that.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 434
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Winstanley said:

    How do Leave voters here feel about Nigel Farage these days? I can't believe his chutzpah, after campaigning for so long for Brexit, to go off on an American jolly at a critical moment and contributing nothing to the substantial issue of making Brexit work. It's as if Lenin had pissed off immediately after proclaiming Soviet power.

    And how's that fantastic moustache of his doing?

    I have long been vocal as an opponent of Farage within UKIP and in the wider debate. He served a very useful role early on in the campaign to leave the EU and deserves our thanks for that. But once the decision had been made for a referendum he became a liability. I am actually glad he is now no longer appearing all over our screens as part of this debate as I don't think he would add anything of substance.

    Once Brexit has been completed I also see no further point to UKIP.
    That's a good point I've been wondering about. Was Farage half hoping for a slight Remain win, to inject new life into his political career, possibly even win some Tory MPs over etc. The referendum could have done for UKIP what the Scottish referendum did for the SNP.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,714
    stodge said:

    DavidL said:

    "Come together as a country to sort it out" - no.

    The problem is and always been the Conservative Party. The referendum itself was cooked up by Cameron as a way of shoring up the Conservative vote from UKIP and it succeeded.

    Cameron may not have expected to win his majority - perhaps he hoped for Coalition 2.0 - but the LDs were crushed and he had to implement the Referendum he had promised. Perhaps he thought he could win that by the strength of his charisma, personality and popular appeal but he crashed and burned just as Nick Clegg did with AV.

    With his departure, a sensible leader would have made this a cross-party non-partisan exercise inviting the best from all sides (including REMAIN) to come together to craft the best deal for our country.

    That didn't happen - instead, part of the Conservative Party decided they would own and control the process completely and spent months telling us not to worry our little heads about it but "trust Theresa". When it turned out we didn't and time and money was wasted on a futile GE we've found ourselves seven months down a twenty-four month road and, platitudes aside, we have the sum total of bugger all.

    My error was not to vote LEAVE but to assume those who would find themselves in power would have the interests of the nation at heart rather than their own squalid party political machinations.




    You seem to be contradicting yourself in saying no but agreeing that is what should have happened. I completely agree every effort should have been made to make this a national effort. I have repeatedly said that the Government was wrong not to invite Mandelson to take part and Starmer if he was willing. We also should have had at least 1 prominent remainer in the negotiations. Just imagine where we might be if, instead of having a catastrophic election, May had been big enough to give Osborne that role.

    Instead we had the 3 Brexiteers. A plan to further disunite the country is hard to conceive of.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Meanwhile, in Leave-Leave land:

    https://twitter.com/TimHarford/status/918444878018891776
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    MarqueeMark said:

    calum said:

    Here we go
    https://twitter.com/joepike/status/918444984424189953

    Corbyn could still have spoilt his ballot and voted Leave too, without actually lying....
    Probably more devious than he is, but would be clever.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,040
    Stereotomy said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Stereotomy said:

    kle4 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I'd forgotten about this. Surely May wishes we all had.

    What is even the point!?
    A negligible reduction in expenditure for a significant political cost.

    The boundaries themselves really do need updating, but it is a shame that it was already so awkward with the reduction when it was a majority, now it will be even more fractious.
    But what was the reason for the reduction in number?
    Austerity. Fewer MPs = Smaller cost.
    I don't really have an opinion on the correct number of MPs, but that does seem like a lot of political pain for what must be an almost meaningless financial gain
    The background was the aftermath of the MPs’ expenses row from 2009, which led Conservatives and LDs to put a reduction in their 2010 manifestos and from there into the coalition agreement.

    It would probably be sensible for it to be voted to be delayed again next week, at least until Brexit is out of the way. That’s much easier than voting for the retention of 650 constituencies, which I think requires primary legislation to repeal the previous law from 2011.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,993
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Elliot said:

    If we had a small recession after Brexit before bouncing back quickly to growth and surpassing the pre-recession peak, would PB's Remainers still class that as trashing the economy?

    Right at the moment Leavers are preparing to claim anything short of food riots and troops on the street as a magnificent Brexit success.
    Well that's what you are pretending at any rate. Christ, is using the word some, many, most or nearly all really such an imposition?

  • calumcalum Posts: 3,046
    Jezza living dangerously
    https://twitter.com/joepike/status/918449311616323584
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 18,159
    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:

    DavidL said:

    FF43 said:


    Brexit has to be a success or at least tolerable or you cancel it and move on. No deal is not success. Any arrangement with the EU will necessarily be inferior to what we had before, so necessarily the negotiation is about damage limitation. But if Leavers want to see the union flag disappear at Berlaymont, they have to roll with it.

    The question is how we get a good deal with the EU. We do that by having an alternative. If we do not have an alternative we will have to choose between a bad deal and staying in (although god knows why the EU27 would want a member who would be bloody furious and not minded to agree to anything else, ever).
    Step by step. The current step is to get through withdrawal while keeping things as close as possible to what we already have for a limited period. It's citizens rights, Irish border fudge and a chunk of money in exchange for a time limited "transition" - actually a partial extension. It's not difficult because it basically comes down to money. Longer term discussions come later. Talk of walking away wastes time and increases the probability of Brexit failure, which surely isn't in the Leaver interest and shouldn't be in the Remainer one either. We don't always do the rational thing but I think we will probably agree to release the money.
    I completely agree with the first part. That is exactly what we should be aiming for. But I disagree with the second part. My experience is that negotiations only succeed when both parties realise that the other side has a choice, no matter how unpalatable, and something to trade.
    The problem with that analysis, which I accept as theory, is that we don't have a no deal alternative that is better than anything the EU is likely to offer. Which puts us in a very weak negotiating position. Our better strategy is to understand what the EU wants and maximise our value around that. Maybe we shouldn't have got ourselves into this situation in the first place, but that's another discussion about a situation that I don't feel I contributed to.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,581
    Elliot said:

    If we had a small recession after Brexit before bouncing back quickly to growth and surpassing the pre-recession peak, would PB's Remainers still class that as trashing the economy?

    Well the Leavers have gone from pre-referendum that there’d be no economic hit to know it would be worth it. Like the badgers that plagued Owen Paterson, you keep on shifting the goalposts.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,047
    AlastairMeeks said:

    Meanwhile, in Leave-Leave land:

    The Tories are setting themselves up for a 1997 scale defeat if they don't get a grip on this kind of thing.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,403
    Winstanley said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Winstanley said:

    How do Leave voters here feel about Nigel Farage these days? I can't believe his chutzpah, after campaigning for so long for Brexit, to go off on an American jolly at a critical moment and contributing nothing to the substantial issue of making Brexit work. It's as if Lenin had pissed off immediately after proclaiming Soviet power.

    And how's that fantastic moustache of his doing?

    I have long been vocal as an opponent of Farage within UKIP and in the wider debate. He served a very useful role early on in the campaign to leave the EU and deserves our thanks for that. But once the decision had been made for a referendum he became a liability. I am actually glad he is now no longer appearing all over our screens as part of this debate as I don't think he would add anything of substance.

    Once Brexit has been completed I also see no further point to UKIP.
    That's a good point I've been wondering about. Was Farage half hoping for a slight Remain win, to inject new life into his political career, possibly even win some Tory MPs over etc. The referendum could have done for UKIP what the Scottish referendum did for the SNP.
    No idea. Beyond the wanting to get out of the EU and a genuine dislike for the State interfering in people's lives I have no real idea what he wanted.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,881
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Nigelb said:

    williamglenn said:

    Scott_P said:

    Crush the saboteurs!

    https://twitter.com/daily_politics/status/918443192487256064
    Lawson being an utterly disinterested observer giving us the benefit of his impartial assessment ...
    Doesn't make him wrong.
    Or right.

    The exchange of insults based on little but personal opinion is one of the most depressing aspects of this whole debate. Lawson used to be more sensible about politics, but that was a while back.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,551
    Elliot said:

    If we had a small recession after Brexit before bouncing back quickly to growth and surpassing the pre-recession peak, would PB's Remainers still class that as trashing the economy?

    Elliot. Its what happens next that's the concern. We have to be able to trade on day 1 after we leave, yet when real and practical issues are raised its always thrown back as "we're Britain" or "in 5 years...". Forget 5 years down the line and look 5 days down the line.

    Without being a member of the EEA the EU will impose a hard border. What we do on our side is irrelevant - they will stop and check all trucks crossing their border. The delay not only adds massive cost it physically stops trade. Our trucks can't cross the channel to then recross loaded with car parts or food or that fitness tracker I've ordered from Amazon that they're sending me (with free shipping!) from Italy.

    What are the realities here? Our port operators say it will take years to install the infrastructure needed for full customs checks. HMRC say it needs 5 years for a computer system to handle "no deal" customs checks. Our big logistics operators are increasingly concerned. I work in the food industry which is now trying to work out what the hell to do with the worst case scenario we're now facing. And thats just one industry - most others are built on easy free unimpeded access to and from European suppliers and factories. The EU will impose a hard border if we leave the single market on day 1.

    So in an economy with inflation once again outstripping wages, with 1/3 of households having £0 in the bank, with personal debt north of £200bn and an immediate sharp economic shock brewing with no deal brexit, you will have to excuse me if I - a leave voter BTW - take your dismissive comments about the economy under advisement.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Incidentally, could we have a Venn diagram of:

    (a) Leavers who were foaming at the bit a year ago for Article 50 to be triggered immediately and conducting Two Minutes Hates of judges who were holding up the process of rule by Government fiat; and

    (b) Leavers who are now furious with the Government for having triggered Article 50 too soon?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,819
    AlastairMeeks said:


    Given that this was an inevitable consequence of voting Leave in the circumstances that existed last June, this is a distinction without a difference.

    Why was it inevitable ?

    We were told Cameron wouldn't resign if the vote was lost - he said so himself publicly and even on the night of the result a letter from the prominent LEAVE supporting MPs such as Gove and Johnson asked him to stay on.

    He chose not to.

    The Conservatives then anointed as their successor the former Home Secretary who had publicly backed REMAIN as their leader. She pledged to unite the country and party and started sounding like Ed Miliband which people started to like for no obvious reason.

    What she then failed to do was have the wider discussion about what we actually wanted - the line was "you voted LEAVE. You don't need to worry about it. Trust me. I'll sort it out" or "Brexit means Brexit". We could get away to our summer holidays, football, Love Island, Strictly or whatever and not care about the future of our country because Theresa will sort it out and we could imagine she would dish up the deal each of us wanted (albeit millions of different deals ranging from BINO to bricking up the Channel Tunnel).

    That illusion got us nine months with a further seven months of the Davis-Barnier show which isn't quite the Two Ronnies but is getting there.


This discussion has been closed.