JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
I agree, but I am afraid the hardline RC stuff rules him out.
To be fair he repeatedly rules himself out.
Of course he does, would be terribly uncouth for a gentleman to be out punting for a role that's currently filled. But look at how he's increased his profile this year - he wants political advancement.
Tim Montgomery's piece in The Guardian refers to Rob Halfron stating that the Tories have no vision or purpose. Thats because they have let a load of mediocre apparatchiks fill the cabinet (as Brown did) and have no idea about what to do in power apart from stay in power. They need someone who can drive an agenda, and the Moggmeister would do that.
What does being a Catholic have to do with anything?
Rudd and Hammond being the most mediocre of them all.
Mr. Urquhart, we should be doing the same. These weren't naive kids, they were joining a group that's the moral equivalent of the Nazis or Khmer Rouge. Crucifying children and burning men alive, then going home to your sex slaves, aren't the acts of teenage delinquency, but of terrorists and war criminals.
Mr. Topping, if all three parties promise a referendum in their manifestos and then the winning party decides to just not bother, that isn't representing the electorate and it isn't respecting democracy.
They can't share the assessment. If it was anything positive or even neutral they would have shared it by now. Even if it was "a wee bit bumpy but we'll be ok" they'd have shared it to distract from the mess of our "negotiations".
That it definitely can't be shared no no no demonstrates that it sets out clearly and simply that the people who run the ports, the Border Agency, HMRC, the hauliers, the food industry, the CBI etc etc are all correct - hard no deal Brexit would be like someone switching off the economy. A crash stop in the flow of trade that like all crash stops ends up with a large pile-up behind it and a pile of bodies.
"The current Labour polling leads are nowhere near what you would have thought they should be given the turmoil within the blue team."
Good analysis Mike. Yes, your last point is the crux of the matter. The political climate feels to me to be something akin to 1994-5, when the Tory Party was tearing itself apart in the wake of Maastricht and we had a Prime Minister who was regarded with derision by most of the general public. You can add to that something we didn't have then, which is a continued and accelerating squeeze on living standards of unparalleled length, such that the public now see through the promises of jam tomorrow on which the 2015 election was fought, plus a squeeze on public services far more intense and unrelenting compared to that of the Major years.
Yet the polls just don't reflect that as we did in 1994-95. Then, Gallup had Labour around 30% ahead, falling back to 13% at the 1997 GE which matched Blair's winning margin spot on. Currently Labour is between only 0% and 6% ahead. Even Ed Miliband managed to nudge double digit leads for a while.
Corbyn has helped change that narrative, but you didn't need to be on the far left to be able to mount a more robust challenge to the Tories than Ed Miliband could ever bring himself to, in a context that has vastly changed since the first half of the decade. At the same time Corbyn remains a Marmite figure, enthusing some but repulsing others. So while there's a fair chance now that Corbyn could win the most seats at the next election whenever that comes, nothing is nailed on as it was at the dog end of the Major years, whether it had been Blair, Brown or John Smith leading the Labour Party then.
If Corbyn wins next time it will be more February or October 1974 than 1997 in my view.
Tim Montgomerie's article in the Guardian shows that austerity is dying and the Conservatives are deciding to go on a horticultural expedition for the magic money tree.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
It's 60 billion Euros, so £53 billion (was lower before Brexit screwed the pound), and other countries seeking talks on a trade agreement hadn't previously committed to binding budget commitments that the EU would like settled, as they were signed off on the understanding Britain would contribute towards them. You can dispute the number - as I understand it the biggest contention is over future projects, where we, correctly, are arguing we should get some discount due to the value of the assets funded. But arguing with paying any bill at all, understandably makes the EU as furious as your mates would be if you ordered a load of dishes in the curry house, walked out after the starters after refusing to pay then expected them to be matey in the pub afterwards. You could walk out, but they're likely to tell you to sod off.
You forgot the bit where your mates didn't let you have any of the curry.
Well you're the one that's decided to sod off! They're saying (and still are) stay and share. We're the ones who're walking out the door in a huff because "don't like it now, wanna go talk to my other mates".
We've been called out on an emergency and want to take our takeaway with us understandably. They want to keep all the curry for themselves and for us to pay the bill in full.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
.
You forgot the bit where your mates didn't let you have any of the curry.
Well you're the one that's decided to sod off! They're saying (and still are) stay and share. We're the ones who're walking out the door in a huff because "don't like it now, wanna go talk to my other mates".
We've been called out on an emergency and want to take our takeaway with us understandably. They want to keep all the curry for themselves and for us to pay the bill in full.
But we haven't though, have we? We've decided to sod off.
Mr. Mortimer, jein. Labour seem to be batting for the other side in these negotiations. But that's entirely deliberate.
Likewise, the infamous bikiniphobe is trying to curry favour with Londoners.
Mr. Roger, even as a silly comment, that's not the kind of thing an adult should be writing. Get back to me when Leave voters support the crucifixion of children and burning people alive.
Mr. Doethur, hmm. You may be correct. But the second referendum line is one that Labour is pushing, and I do wonder if the friend of Hamas asked the eurocrats about this when he was busy undermining British interests in Brussels recently.
They're 70+% neanerthal morons. I was being kind making light of it in my last post.
Neanderthal, rog, and what a beautifully self-stultifying post. There is no evidence *at all* suggesting Neanderthal man was moronic, but obviously it is safe to assume he was because he has a funny Kraut name and was first identified by the sales Boches.
And btw you have Neanderthal genes in you. But don't worry, I won't tell anybody if you don't.
NEANDERTAL "• an uncivilized, unintelligent, or uncouth man. the stereotype of the mechanic as a macho Neanderthal." (Oxford Dictionary)
The Oxford Dictionary describes, not prescribes. It gives definitions for "n*gger", "queer" and "dyke", all in their most offensive meaning.
Mr. D, but not subject to QMV in a slew of areas because Brown threw away the vetoes signing a treaty and reneging upon the related referendum.
How many QMV votes did we ever lose that were actually implemented and proved harmful to the UK?
QMV was stupid but in the grand scheme of things not as harmful as being in a situation where we have no vote, no say in the development but still have to accept the consequences
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
It's 60 biwards them. You can dispute the number - as I understand it the biggest contention is over future projects, where we, correctly, are arguing we should get some discount due to the value of the assets funded. But arguing with paying any bill at all, understandably makes the EU as furious as your mates would be if you ordered a load of dishes in the curry house, walked out after the starters after refusing to pay then expected them to be matey in the pub afterwards. You could walk out, but they're likely to tell you to sod off.
You forgot the bit where your mates didn't let you have any of the curry.
Well you're the one that's decided to sod off! They're saying (and still are) stay and share. We're the ones who're walking out the door in a huff because "don't like it now, wanna go talk to my other mates".
We've been called out on an emergency and want to take our takeaway with us understandably. They want to keep all the curry for themselves and for us to pay the bill in full.
Tim Montgomerie's article in the Guardian shows that austerity is dying and the Conservatives are deciding to go on a horticultural expedition for the magic money tree.
We'll need that magic money tree to pay off the EU...
The UKs foreign policy has historically been to avoid a situation where the whole of Europe is united against us. When we were part of the EU that was generally possible since we had plenty of natural allies on various topics: free trade, security, deregulation, etc.
Now that we are out of the EU, we can no longer play individual countries off against each other and are instead subjected to a Europe united against us.
People will ultimately come to understand the political reasons why we joined in the first place. The Brexiteers are just wasting time relearning the lessons of the 50s and 60s.
Tim Montgomerie's article in the Guardian shows that austerity is dying and the Conservatives are deciding to go on a horticultural expedition for the magic money tree.
The LD trouncing in the 2015 general election, the Leave vote in the EU referendum which got rid of Osborne and his target to cut spending to just 35% of gdp and the 2017 general election which saw the Tories lose their majority combined effectively killed off austerity.
Tim Montgomerie's article in the Guardian shows that austerity is dying and the Conservatives are deciding to go on a horticultural expedition for the magic money tree.
The Leave vote in the EU referendum which got rid of Osborne and his target to cut spending to just 35% of gdp and the 2017 general election which saw the Tories lose their majority combined effectively killed off austerity.
And the Conservatives' reputation for financial prudence.
Meanwhile, over in Catalonia the latest voting intentions shows almost no change from the elections that took place in 2015; that is a very slender majority in seats for pro-independence parties, but with less than 50% of the vote.
This comes on the back of other polling published in the same newspaper which shows majority opposition to UDI and strong support for a negotiated settlement that leaves Catalonia inside Spain.
The trick is how to get to the point where Catalans are voting in a referendum on more autonomy rather than in an election about independence. If the PP had any sense whatsoever efore PP scuppered it.
Meanwhile, Spain-wide polling continues to show that PP is getting no benefit from the Catalonia crisis.
Out of curiosity - it isn't vitally important - does the Spanish constitutional provision that Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct apply to Ceuta and Melilla? I know they would like it to apply to Gibraltar?
The Spanish argue that Melilla and Ceuta existed as part of Spain long before Morocco existed as a country. The are run as Spanish provinces like any others.
There is a Canary Islands nationalist party, but it wants more autonomy rather than independence. It is well supported and currently runs the regional government. But the Canaries have always been a part of Spain and unlike the Basques and Catalans there is no different language (though the accent and influences are much more Latin American than on the peninsular)
There’s a whistling language in La Gomera, opne of the smaller islands. Franco banned it, but it’s now been revived. Not sure hopw useful it was for meaningful conversations; more a long distance communication system, I suspect.
It is still going, was in La Gomera last year.
Lovely place isn’t it! Lot of up and down, though! As far as the language is concerned, we were told that the 'silbo gomero’ was now taught in schools. It’s a whistled version of Spanish, though, not a distinct language.
If the Commons voted to "reject" the no deal, Davis (or his successor) would have to go to the EU and ask for an extension to the A50 process to allow for further negotiation which the EU would, I suspect, accept.
How long an extension? To what end? And if the EU don't budge an inch?
The political imperative is that if there is no deal, then we leave in March 2019 with no deal - and no cheque to Brussels. The next UK election will then pass judgment on whether that was the right thing to do.
This all depends on how catastrophic you think "no deal" will be. If it's as bad as certain informed reports suggest then no government in their right mind would willingly go through with it. Which is why we really do need to see the government's impact assessments to determine if "no deal" really is an option - it could be the equivalent of having a vote on whether shooting our leg off was the right thing to do.
The problem is that no other countries had to pay £60bn up front before any talks on a trade agreement could took place.
The fact that they are demanding that from us is a complete disgrace.
.
You forgot the bit where your mates didn't let you have any of the curry.
Well you're the one that's decided to sod off! They're saying (and still are) stay and share. We're the ones who're walking out the door in a huff because "don't like it now, wanna go talk to my other mates".
We've been called out on an emergency and want to take our takeaway with us understandably. They want to keep all the curry for themselves and for us to pay the bill in full.
But we haven't though, have we? We've decided to sod off.
Yes we've decided to leave and take what we've paid for with us or if they won't let us then not pay anything towards the bill. It's not unreasonable in the slightest.
The UKs foreign policy has historically been to avoid a situation where the whole of Europe is united against us. When we were part of the EU that was generally possible since we had plenty of natural allies on various topics: free trade, security, deregulation, etc.
Now that we are out of the EU, we can no longer play individual countries off against each other and are instead subjected to a Europe united against us.
People will ultimately come to understand the political reasons why we joined in the first place. The Brexiteers are just wasting time relearning the lessons of the 50s and 60s.
Just those pesky voters getting in the way of a politically united Europe which they don't want to be part of.
I gather that at least some modern research suggests that the Neandertals died out because they couldn’t cope with the more aggressive Hom Sapiens, who was also much better at working in large groups.
Mr. Urquhart, we should be doing the same. These weren't naive kids, they were joining a group that's the moral equivalent of the Nazis or Khmer Rouge. Crucifying children and burning men alive, then going home to your sex slaves, aren't the acts of teenage delinquency, but of terrorists and war criminals.
Mr. Topping, if all three parties promise a referendum in their manifestos and then the winning party decides to just not bother, that isn't representing the electorate and it isn't respecting democracy.
Surely even the actual Nazis, once the war was over, were tried at Nuremberg rather than summarily shot?
Tim Montgomerie's article in the Guardian shows that austerity is dying and the Conservatives are deciding to go on a horticultural expedition for the magic money tree.
The Leave vote in the EU referendum which got rid of Osborne and his target to cut spending to just 35% of gdp and the 2017 general election which saw the Tories lose their majority combined effectively killed off austerity.
And the Conservatives' reputation for financial prudence.
There's a chance, just a chance, that it works.
End austerity, a proper housebuilding program, soft brexit, an upswing in the global economy, normalisation of interest rates and significantly increased tax receipts to balance the books in ~5 years.
"The current Labour polling leads are nowhere near what you would have thought they should be given the turmoil within the blue team."
Good analysis Mike. Yes, your last point is the crux of the matter. The political climate feels to me to be something akin to 1994-5, when the Tory Party was tearing itself apart in the wake of Maastricht and we had a Prime Minister who was regarded with derision by most of the general public. You can add to that something we didn't have then, which is a continued and accelerating squeeze on living standards of unparalleled length, such that the public now see through the promises of jam tomorrow on which the 2015 election was fought, plus a squeeze on public services far more intense and unrelenting compared to that of the Major years.
Yet the polls just don't reflect that as we did in 1994-95. Then, Gallup had Labour around 30% ahead, falling back to 13% at the 1997 GE which matched Blair's winning margin spot on. Currently Labour is between only 0% and 6% ahead. Even Ed Miliband managed to nudge double digit leads for a while.
Corbyn has helped change that narrative, but you didn't need to be on the far left to be able to mount a more robust challenge to the Tories than Ed Miliband could ever bring himself to, in a context that has vastly changed since the first half of the decade. At the same time Corbyn remains a Marmite figure, enthusing some but repulsing others. So while there's a fair chance now that Corbyn could win the most seats at the next election whenever that comes, nothing is nailed on as it was at the dog end of the Major years, whether it had been Blair, Brown or John Smith leading the Labour Party then.
It makes little sense to make comparisons with 1994/95 because we are nowhere near the same point in the electoral cycle - indeed the equivalent point would be the late summer of 1992.
"The current Labour polling leads are nowhere near what you would have thought they should be given the turmoil within the blue team."
Good analysis Mike. Yes, your last point is the crux of the matter. The political climate feels to me to be something akin to 1994-5, when the Tory Party was tearing itself apart in the wake of Maastricht and we had a Prime Minister who was regarded with derision by most of the general public. You can add to that something we didn't have then, which is a continued and accelerating squeeze on living standards of unparalleled length, such that the public now see through the promises of jam tomorrow on which the 2015 election was fought, plus a squeeze on public services far more intense and unrelenting compared to that of the Major years.
Yet the polls just don't reflect that as we did in 1994-95. Then, Gallup had Labour around 30% ahead, falling back to 13% at the 1997 GE which matched Blair's winning margin spot on. Currently Labour is between only 0% and 6% ahead. Even Ed Miliband managed to nudge double digit leads for a while.
Corbyn has helped change that narrative, but you didn't need to be on the far left to be able to mount a more robust challenge to the Tories than Ed Miliband could ever bring himself to, in a context that has vastly changed since the first half of the decade. At the same time Corbyn remains a Marmite figure, enthusing some but repulsing others. So while there's a fair chance now that Corbyn could win the most seats at the next election whenever that comes, nothing is nailed on as it was at the dog end of the Major years, whether it had been Blair, Brown or John Smith leading the Labour Party then.
It makes little sense to make comparisons with 1994/95 because we are nowhere near the same point in the electoral cycle - indeed the equivalent point would be the late summer of 1992.
No the late autumn of 1987 given we are only 3 general elections and 7 years into the Tory term
Meanwhile, over in Catalonia the latest voting intentions shows almost no change from the elections that took place in 2015; that is a very slender majority in seats for pro-independence parties, but with less than 50% of the vote.
This comes on the back of other polling published in the same newspaper which shows majority opposition to UDI and strong support for a negotiated settlement that leaves Catalonia inside Spain.
The trick is how to get to the point where Catalans are voting in a referendum on more autonomy rather than in an election about independence. If the PP had any sense whatsoever efore PP scuppered it.
Meanwhile, Spain-wide polling continues to show that PP is getting no benefit from the Catalonia crisis.
Out of curiosity - it isn't vitally important - does the Spanish constitutional provision that Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct apply to Ceuta and Melilla? I know they would like it to apply to Gibraltar?
The Spanish argue that Melilla and Ceuta existed as part of Spain long before Morocco existed as a country. The are run as Spanish provinces like any others.
There is a Canary Islands nationalist party, but it wants more autonomy the peninsular)
There’s a whistling language in La Gomera, opne of the smaller islands. Franco banned it, but it’s now been revived. Not sure hopw useful it was for meaningful conversations; more a long distance communication system, I suspect.
It is still going, was in La Gomera last year.
Lovely place isn’t it! Lot of up and down, though! As far as the language is concerned, we were told that the 'silbo gomero’ was now taught in schools. It’s a whistled version of Spanish, though, not a distinct language.
Yes and even some rainforest too. You are right it is a whistling language rather than a full language.
Tim Montgomerie's article in the Guardian shows that austerity is dying and the Conservatives are deciding to go on a horticultural expedition for the magic money tree.
The Leave vote in the EU referendum which got rid of Osborne and his target to cut spending to just 35% of gdp and the 2017 general election which saw the Tories lose their majority combined effectively killed off austerity.
And the Conservatives' reputation for financial prudence.
The 2017 Tory manifesto was full of financial prudence, fat lot of good it them when the results came in.
The UKs foreign policy has historically been to avoid a situation where the whole of Europe is united against us. When we were part of the EU that was generally possible since we had plenty of natural allies on various topics: free trade, security, deregulation, etc.
Now that we are out of the EU, we can no longer play individual countries off against each other and are instead subjected to a Europe united against us.
People will ultimately come to understand the political reasons why we joined in the first place. The Brexiteers are just wasting time relearning the lessons of the 50s and 60s.
We joined EFTA in 1960 which is where we should have stayed.
I think I also need to comment about the labour needs of agriculture post Brexit. There has been a lot of whining mainly from the poultry sector and to a lesser extent from the vegetable and fruit producers. For vegetables and fruit the concern is well justified. It is inevitable that production will become even more mechanised I guess. There must be a moderate increase in prices so local people are prepared to take on the employment.
For the poultry sector the situation is more complex that it is portrayed on the nice media. Even when I grew up many if not most farms had a small flock of hens and perhaps ducks, geese and turkeys. As well as egg production there was also some meat for the autumn and Christmas trades. This was completely throttled and killed off by Bernard Matthews et al who built enormous sheds and stuffed them with chicken and turkeys. They couldn't find enough employees to do the plucking, gutting and post-production stuff so they brought them in from Europe. Unbelievably there are still a few family producers just about around. You won't see them interviewed on Countryfile but it can only be good for them if the big producers can't import their labour as that will stop them undercutting them for the first time in a generation.
I can give you my views on agricultural support after Brexit as well if you want - but only if you want it !
Jezbollah is the reason why despite the Tories collapse into the mire and Labour ideas driving the political agenda we are not a long way ahead. Put simply, people like the policies but don't trust Corbyn to deliver them. Ordinarily with politicians the lack of trust is a fear they will backtrack or weasel out, with Corbyn it is fear he will pull a load of other policies out of the sack they don't like such as nationalising Fish and Chip shops.
If you are a Conservative trying to achieve things for Britain you should be worried. After 13 years in opposition and 7 years of mostly coalition government you are bereft of policy ideas and even basic political direction - a Cones Hotline unveiled now would be a significant piece of policy compared to the sod-all of substance filling the farcical double parliamentary term.
Yes, you may well stay in office - its just possible you could pull off a Brexit that isn't an ELE for the party, combined with Corbyn getting ever more batshit. But it won't be Tory ideas you're implementing. Because despite all the bluster and the denial, there are some basic home truths out there in people's consciousness that can't be denied or ignored any longer. The cost of living is getting silly, we're both building masses of houses and having a mass shortage in houses people can afford, cuts to front line services in health education and social care imperil the basic viability of these services, crime is rising as police cuts steepen, "employment" doesn't always pay the bills or provide any stability. All at a time when the national debt increased by 50% AND personal debt hit crisis point.
These issues have been created by blind ideology and ignorance. Ordinarily the party responsible should be facing the chop. But despite Corbyn having pointed out these realities AND changed the narrative he is still so polarising that Labour aren't surging on. I expect that "Corbynism" - policies that were the mainstream political centreground until the mid 80s - is here to stay. But unless the old man steps aside for someone else I struggle to see how Labour are in government implementing it
Jezbollah is the reason why despite the Tories collapse into the mire and Labour ideas driving the political agenda we are not a long way ahead. Put simply, people like the policies but don't trust Corbyn to deliver them. Ordinarily with politicians the lack of trust is a fear they will backtrack or weasel out, with Corbyn it is fear he will pull a load of other policies out of the sack they don't like such as nationalising Fish and Chip shops.
If you are a Conservative trying to achieve things for Britain you should be worried. After 13 years in opposition and 7 years of mostly coalition government you are bereft of policy ideas and even basic political direction - a Cones Hotline unveiled now would be a significant piece of policy compared to the sod-all of substance filling the farcical double parliamentary term.
Yes, you may well stay in office - its just possible you could pull off a Brexit that isn't an ELE for the party, combined with Corbyn getting ever more batshit. But it won't be Tory ideas you're implementing. Because despite all the bluster and the denial, there are some basic home truths out there in people's consciousness that can't be denied or ignored any longer. The cost of living is getting silly, we're both building masses of houses and having a mass shortage in houses people can afford, cuts to front line services in health education and social care imperil the basic viability of these services, crime is rising as police cuts steepen, "employment" doesn't always pay the bills or provide any stability. All at a time when the national debt increased by 50% AND personal debt hit crisis point.
These issues have been created by blind ideology and ignorance. Ordinarily the party responsible should be facing the chop. But despite Corbyn having pointed out these realities AND changed the narrative he is still so polarising that Labour aren't surging on. I expect that "Corbynism" - policies that were the mainstream political centreground until the mid 80s - is here to stay. But unless the old man steps aside for someone else I struggle to see how Labour are in government implementing it
I am not aware of a precedent for the Opposition party to be enjoying a big poll lead within 5 months of the previous general election!
Jezbollah is the reason why despite the Tories collapse into the mire and Labour ideas driving the political agenda we are not a long way ahead. Put simply, people like the policies but don't trust Corbyn to deliver them. Ordinarily with politicians the lack of trust is a fear they will backtrack or weasel out, with Corbyn it is fear he will pull a load of other policies out of the sack they don't like such as nationalising Fish and Chip shops.
If you are a Conservative trying to achieve things for Britain you should be worried. After 13 years in opposition and 7 years of mostly coalition government you are bereft of policy ideas and even basic political direction - a Cones Hotline unveiled now would be a significant piece of policy compared to the sod-all of substance filling the farcical double parliamentary term.
Yes, you may well stay in office - its just possible you could pull off a Brexit that isn't an ELE for the party, combined with Corbyn getting ever more batshit. But it won't be Tory ideas you're implementing. Because despite all the bluster and the denial, there are some basic home truths out there in people's consciousness that can't be denied or ignored any longer. The cost of living is getting silly, we're both building masses of houses and having a mass shortage in houses people can afford, cuts to front line services in health education and social care imperil the basic viability of these services, crime is rising as police cuts steepen, "employment" doesn't always pay the bills or provide any stability. All at a time when the national debt increased by 50% AND personal debt hit crisis point.
These issues have been created by blind ideology and ignorance. Ordinarily the party responsible should be facing the chop. But despite Corbyn having pointed out these realities AND changed the narrative he is still so polarising that Labour aren't surging on. I expect that "Corbynism" - policies that were the mainstream political centreground until the mid 80s - is here to stay. But unless the old man steps aside for someone else I struggle to see how Labour are in government implementing it
I am a conservative but have never been an 'ultra austerity' zealot like some Osborneites, indeed apart from Brexit May's current policies are not that different from those of John Major, a government which left low inflation, a growing economy, spending around 40% of gdp and a shift from producer to consumer in the public services. Corbyn meanwhile is Michael Foot in his gut, Neil Kinnock in his head.
Of course it took Blair to beat Major, Major beat Kinnock.
a Cones Hotline unveiled now would be a significant piece of policy compared to the sod-all of substance filling the farcical double parliamentary term.
Almost a year on from banning letting agent fees.....
The French and Russian are already doing this. They have special ops in Syria and Iraq targeting their own citizens to ensure they don’t come back.
Rory raises his head above the parapet for first time in a long while.
The surprise is that it’s actually being talked about, rather than just letting James Bond and the Hereford Branch of the Diplomatic Service quietly get on with what we pay them to do.
Jezbollah is the reason why despite the Tories collapse into the mire and Labour ideas driving the political agenda we are not a long way ahead. Put simply, people like the policies but don't trust Corbyn to deliver them. Ordinarily with politicians the lack of trust is a fear they will backtrack or weasel out, with Corbyn it is fear he will pull a load of other policies out of the sack they don't like such as nationalising Fish and Chip shops.
If you are a Conservative trying to achieve things for Britain you should be worried. After 13 years in opposition and 7 years of mostly coalition government you are bereft of policy ideas and even basic political direction - a Cones Hotline unveiled now would be a significant piece of policy compared to the sod-all of substance filling the farcical double parliamentary term.
Yes, you may well stay in office - its just possible you could pull off a Brexit that isn't an ELE for the party, combined with Corbyn getting ever more batshit. But it won't be Tory ideas you're implementing. Because despite all the bluster and the denial, there are some basic home truths out there in people's consciousness that can't be denied or ignored any longer. The cost of living is getting silly, we're both building masses of houses and having a mass shortage in houses people can afford, cuts to front line services in health education and social care imperil the basic viability of these services, crime is rising as police cuts steepen, "employment" doesn't always pay the bills or provide any stability. All at a time when the national debt increased by 50% AND personal debt hit crisis point.
These issues have been created by blind ideology and ignorance. Ordinarily the party responsible should be facing the chop. But despite Corbyn having pointed out these realities AND changed the narrative he is still so polarising that Labour aren't surging on. I expect that "Corbynism" - policies that were the mainstream political centreground until the mid 80s - is here to stay. But unless the old man steps aside for someone else I struggle to see how Labour are in government implementing it
It would be useful to have some idea of Labour's priority list of policies. For example, is Corbyn, if he wins, going to spend the first three years of parliamentary time getting complex nationalisations of utilities, water and Royal Mail through? Meanwhile, nothing happens on say all his talk of R&D investment, house building, tackling low pay etc.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The life expectancy for a Lib Dem MP who did that would be roughly equal to that of a Tory MP who voted to give the Falklands to Argentina while bailing out Venezuela by cutting pensions, or a Labour MP who voted for ATOS to take a majority shareholding in the NHS.
There is no political space for the Lib Dems to support any EU deal without a binding referendum with a remain option (whatever the practicalities of that as discussed as nauseam.) The Lib Dem membership (albeit on the right side of the issue in my view) is developing a blinkered obsession just as prevalent in the opposite direction on the Tory right - but it is removing any possibility of them being involved in any compromise late in the day. I can't see any circumstances where the membership could now back away from the 2nd referendum line, whatever the costs of not doing so.
Jezbollah is the reason why despite the Tories collapse into the mire and Labour ideas driving the political agenda we are not a long way ahead. Put simply, people like the policies but don't trust Corbyn to deliver them. Ordinarily with politicians the lack of trust is a fear they will backtrack or weasel out, with Corbyn it is fear he will pull a load of other policies out of the sack they don't like such as nationalising Fish and Chip shops.
If you are a Conservative trying to achieve things for Britain you should be worried. After 13 years in opposition and 7 years of mostly coalition government you are bereft of policy ideas and even basic political direction - a Cones Hotline unveiled now would be a significant piece of policy compared to the sod-all of substance filling the farcical double parliamentary term.
Yes, you may well stay in office - its just possible you could pull off a Brexit that isn't an ELE for the party, combined with Corbyn getting ever more batshit. But it won't be Tory ideas you're implementing. Because despite all the bluster and the denial, there are some basic home truths out there in people's consciousness that can't be denied or ignored any longer. The cost of living is getting silly, we're both building masses of houses and having a mass shortage in houses people can afford, cuts to front line services in health education and social care imperil the basic viability of these services, crime is rising as police cuts steepen, "employment" doesn't always pay the bills or provide any stability. All at a time when the national debt increased by 50% AND personal debt hit crisis point.
These issues have been created by blind ideology and ignorance. Ordinarily the party responsible should be facing the chop. But despite Corbyn having pointed out these realities AND changed the narrative he is still so polarising that Labour aren't surging on. I expect that "Corbynism" - policies that were the mainstream political centreground until the mid 80s - is here to stay. But unless the old man steps aside for someone else I struggle to see how Labour are in government implementing it
I am not aware of a precedent for the Opposition party to be enjoying a big poll lead within 5 months of the previous general election!
Meanwhile, over in Catalonia the latest voting intentions shows almost no change from the elections that took place in 2015; that is a very slender majority in seats for pro-independence parties, but with less than 50% of the vote.
This comes on the back of other polling published in the same newspaper which shows majority opposition to UDI and strong support for a negotiated settlement that leaves Catalonia inside Spain.
The trick is how to get to the point where Catalans are voting in a referendum on more autonomy rather than in an election about independence. If the PP had any sense whatsoever efore PP scuppered it.
Meanwhile, Spain-wide polling continues to show that PP is getting no benefit from the Catalonia crisis.
Out of curiosity - it isn't vitally important - does the Spanish constitutional provision that Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct apply to Ceuta and Melilla? I know they would like it to apply to Gibraltar?
There is a Canary Islands nationalist party, but it wants more autonomy the peninsular)
There’s a whistling language in La Gomera, opne of the smaller islands. Franco banned it, but it’s now been revived. Not sure hopw useful it was for meaningful conversations; more a long distance communication system, I suspect.
It is still going, was in La Gomera last year.
Lovely place isn’t it! Lot of up and down, though! As far as the language is concerned, we were told that the 'silbo gomero’ was now taught in schools. It’s a whistled version of Spanish, though, not a distinct language.
Yes and even some rainforest too. You are right it is a whistling language rather than a full language.
Been twice, and looking forward to going again sometime. Long trip getting there, of course. For info for anyone else reading and sthinking ‘Canaries ....long trip?’, there are no direct flights from UK. Only regular air links are with Tenerife Norte airport, not Sud which is the main one used by Brit airlines.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, SNP too).
The life expectancy for a Lib Dem MP who did that would be roughly equal to that of a Tory MP who voted to give the Falklands to Argentina while bailing out Venezuela by cutting pensions, or a Labour MP who voted for ATOS to take a majority shareholding in the NHS.
There is no political space for the Lib Dems to support any EU deal without a binding referendum with a remain option (whatever the practicalities of that as discussed as nauseam.) The Lib Dem membership (albeit on the right side of the issue in my view) is developing a blinkered obsession just as prevalent in the opposite direction on the Tory right - but it is removing any possibility of them being involved in any compromise late in the day. I can't see any circumstances where the membership could now back away from the 2nd referendum line, whatever the costs of not doing so.
80% of LD voters voted Remain, surely it would be political suicide for the LDs to vote against a deal with the EU by voting with Rees-Mogg, Patterson and Skinner etc.There is also nothing to stop them arguing the deal should also be put to a referendum for approval including the option to reverse Brexit altogether.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
...
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The life expectancy for a Lib Dem MP who did that would be roughly equal to that of a Tory MP who voted to give the Falklands to Argentina while bailing out Venezuela by cutting pensions, or a Labour MP who voted for ATOS to take a majority shareholding in the NHS.
There is no political space for the Lib Dems to support any EU deal without a binding referendum with a remain option (whatever the practicalities of that as discussed as nauseam.) The Lib Dem membership (albeit on the right side of the issue in my view) is developing a blinkered obsession just as prevalent in the opposite direction on the Tory right - but it is removing any possibility of them being involved in any compromise late in the day. I can't see any circumstances where the membership could now back away from the 2nd referendum line, whatever the costs of not doing so.
Erm, wasn't the party pretty split on Leave/Remain?
Given where the tories are Corbyn should be miles ahead now if he is to win the next GE. Opposition to him looks pretty entrenched and for that reason he needs to reach out beyond the hard left. He doesn't look capable of this.
Meanwhile, over in Catalonia the latest voting intentions shows almost no change from the elections that took place in 2015; that is a very slender majority in seats for pro-independence parties, but with less than 50% of the vote.
This comes on the back of other polling published in the same newspaper which shows majority opposition to UDI and strong support for a negotiated settlement that leaves Catalonia inside Spain.
The trick is how to get to the point where Catalans are voting in a referendum on more autonomy rather than in an election about independence. If the PP had any sense whatsoever efore PP scuppered it.
Meanwhile, Spain-wide polling continues to show that PP is getting no benefit from the Catalonia crisis.
Out of curiosity - it isn't vitally important - does the Spanish constitutional provision that Spain's territorial integrity is sacrosanct apply to Ceuta and Melilla? I know they would like it to apply to Gibraltar?
There is a Canary Islands nationalist party, but it wants more autonomy the peninsular)
There’s a whistling language in La Gomera, opne of the smaller pect.
It is still going, was in La Gomera last year.
Lovely place isn’t it! Lot of up and down, though! As far as the language is concerned, we were told that the 'silbo gomero’ was now taught in schools. It’s a whistled version of Spanish, though, not a distinct language.
Yes and even some rainforest too. You are right it is a whistling language rather than a full language.
Been twice, and looking forward to going again sometime. Long trip getting there, of course. For info for anyone else reading and sthinking ‘Canaries ....long trip?’, there are no direct flights from UK. Only regular air links are with Tenerife Norte airport, not Sud which is the main one used by Brit airlines.
Yes we took the ferry to and from Tenerife (where I almost had my wallet stolen).
Jezbollah is the reason why despite the Tories collapse into the mire and Labour ideas driving the political agenda we are not a long way ahead. Put simply, people like the policies but don't trust Corbyn to deliver them. Ordinarily with politicians the lack of trust is a fear they will backtrack or weasel out, with Corbyn it is fear he will pull a load of other policies out of the sack they don't like such as nationalising Fish and Chip shops.
If you are a Conservative trying to achieve things for Britain you should be worried. After 13 years in opposition and 7 years of mostly coalition government you are bereft of policy ideas and even basic political direction - a Cones Hotline unveiled now would be a significant piece of policy compared to the sod-all of substance filling the farcical double parliamentary term.
Yes, you may well stay in office - its just possible you could pull off a Brexit that isn't an ELE for the party, combined with Corbyn getting ever more batshit. But it won't be Tory ideas you're implementing. Because despite all the bluster and the denial, there are some basic home truths out there in people's consciousness that can't be denied or ignored any longer. The cost of living is getting silly, we're both building masses of houses and having a mass shortage in houses people can afford, cuts to front line services in health education and social care imperil the basic viability of these services, crime is rising as police cuts steepen, "employment" doesn't always pay the bills or provide any stability. All at a time when the national debt increased by 50% AND personal debt hit crisis point.
These issues have been created by blind ideology and ignorance. Ordinarily the party responsible should be facing the chop. But despite Corbyn having pointed out these realities AND changed the narrative he is still so polarising that Labour aren't surging on. I expect that "Corbynism" - policies that were the mainstream political centreground until the mid 80s - is here to stay. But unless the old man steps aside for someone else I struggle to see how Labour are in government implementing it
I am not aware of a precedent for the Opposition party to be enjoying a big poll lead within 5 months of the previous general election!
1979 and Labour are not enjoying a big poll lead.
I am not suggesting Labour does have a big lead but the implication of Rochdale Pioneer's comment was that a big lead should be apparent now. It is normal for the party in Government to enjoy a polling boost in the months immediately following an election - as did Major in 1992 and Thatcher in both 1983 & 1987. Even in in September/October 1979 Labour's poll lead was small.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The life expectancy for a Lib Dem MP who did that would be roughly equal to that of a Tory MP who voted to give the Falklands to Argentina while bailing out Venezuela by cutting pensions, or a Labour MP who voted for ATOS to take a majority shareholding in the NHS.
There is no political space for the Lib Dems to support any EU deal without a binding referendum with a remain option (whatever the practicalities of that as discussed as nauseam.) The Lib Dem membership (albeit on the right side of the issue in my view) is developing a blinkered obsession just as prevalent in the opposite direction on the Tory right - but it is removing any possibility of them being involved in any compromise late in the day. I can't see any circumstances where the membership could now back away from the 2nd referendum line, whatever the costs of not doing so.
80% of LD voters voted Remain, surely it would be political suicide for the LDs to vote against a deal with the EU by voting with Rees-Mogg, Patterson and Skinner etc.There is also nothing to stop them arguing the deal should also be put to a referendum for approval
No, quite the reverse. As a Lib Dem councillor, I know the party on this. The party membership have backed the leadership into a corner on any compromises with regards to supporting a deal. Have a look at the emergency motion that was passed on this at Autumn conference: https://www.libdems.org.uk/conference-autumn-17-f17a-opposing-brexit
The one possible exception I could see the membership relenting on might be full single market and customs union access in perpetuity, but I imagine we would be the other side of a general election if we are heading there.
You forgot the bit where your mates didn't let you have any of the curry.
.
We've been called out on an emergency and want to take our takeaway with us understandably. They want to keep all the curry for themselves and for us to pay the bill in full.
But we haven't though, have we? We've decided to sod off.
Yes we've decided to leave and take what we've paid for with us or if they won't let us then not pay anything towards the bill. It's not unreasonable in the slightest.
But then there won't be a future relationship (except under WTO terms) - which is a lot more disastrous for us than it is for them. Leaving the world's largest free trade bloc in the name of free trade wasn't a particularly smart idea in the first place, which is why we're in this disadvantageous negotiating position where we either pay a large bill for stuff we'd signed up to but now won't benefit (as much) from, or storm out and totally undermine the basis of our economy. As I understand those are the obligations the EU believe we are legally tied too. They may be wrong about some, they may choose to waive some after negotiation, but that's the starting point. Some of it, I believe, is for things like a bailout contingency fund for Ireland which we might want to fund anyway.
You don't get to walk out of a contract half way through and then say "well I'm not getting the benefits any more, so I'm not paying". You agreed that, you might be able to negotiate some form of exit bill that's lower, but you can't say "Sorry, not paying you a penny" and walk off - especially if you are reliant on negotiating a new deal afterwards, which we are.
The delusions of Brexiteers have betrayed Britain's national interest by putting us in a negotiation where we were always going to be at that disadvantage. It's dafter, in many ways than the xenophobic case for Brexit. Stop immigrants and damn the consequences at least makes sense on its own terms. Welching on a comprehensive free trade agreement in the name of national interest and free trade and then demanding other countries act in your interest and help you out rather than enforcing obligations and interests really doesn't.
Given where the tories are Corbyn should be miles ahead now if he is to win the next GE. Opposition to him looks pretty entrenched and for that reason he needs to reach out beyond the hard left. He doesn't look capable of this.
No he doesn't. He won the election. He's bossing the enemy (the Labour Party). He gets thousands of people at his rallies. Opponents are all wrong. And will be removed from their seats by the membership...
It would be useful to have some idea of Labour's priority list of policies. For example, is Corbyn, if he wins, going to spend the first three years of parliamentary time getting complex nationalisations of utilities, water and Royal Mail through? Meanwhile, nothing happens on say all his talk of R&D investment, house building, tackling low pay etc.
Great minds think alike (cf. my Labour List piece).
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly romised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through Parliament especially with rebellions from Tory hard Brexiteers like Mogg and Patterson and possibly Boris over £50 billion+ payments.There will also be a few Labour Leavers like Skinner and Hoey voting against too. Though leaving free movement uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The Opposition simply want to make life as hard as possible for the government which, to be fair, is their job.
If the opposition says a deal has to be agreed in all circumstances then promptly votes against that deal how on earth can they be taken seriously as a viable government?
Rather more seriously than the ones who got us into this position in the first place.
JRM currently on LBC subbing for James O'Brien. Aside from the rather sizeable shift in perspective between the two presenters, there is something wonderfully soothing about the Moggmeister's voice regardless of the nonsense coming out of it.
I still think the Tory powers that be are missing a trick in writing him off. He looks, sounds, and believes like a Tory.
I agree, but I am afraid the hardline RC stuff rules him out.
To be fair he repeatedly rules himself out.
Of course he does, would be terribly uncouth for a gentleman to be out punting for a role that's currently filled. But look at how he's increased his profile this year - he wants political advancement.
Tim Montgomery's piece in The Guardian refers to Rob Halfron stating that the Tories have no vision or purpose. Thats because they have let a load of mediocre apparatchiks fill the cabinet (as Brown did) and have no idea about what to do in power apart from stay in power. They need someone who can drive an agenda, and the Moggmeister would do that.
What does being a Catholic have to do with anything?
Nothing, in practice. In theory, however, I believe many people would be uneasy with a PM holding views which do not chime with what we have come to expect and understand as "the norm" today.
Some people might feel unnerved that their PM is driven to such an extent by what they might term illogical motivation.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice but in practice there is.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly romised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP d staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The Opposition simply want to make life as hard as possible for the government which, to be fair, is their job.
If the opposition says a deal has to be agreed in all circumstances then promptly votes against that deal how on earth can they be taken seriously as a viable government?
Rather more seriously than the ones who got us into this position in the first place.
The Tory PM at the time campaigned rather more vigorously for Remain than Corbyn did, it was 17 million British voters who voted Leave.
Jezbollah is the reason why despite the Tories collapse into the mire and Labour ideas driving the political agenda we are not a long way ahead. Put simply, people like the policies but don't trust Corbyn to deliver them. Ordinarily with politicians the lack of trust is a fear they will backtrack or weasel out, with Corbyn it is fear he will pull a load of other policies out of the sack they don't like such as nationalising Fish and Chip shops.
If you are a Conservative trying to achieve things for Britain you should be worried. After 13 years in opposition and 7 years of mostly coalition government you are bereft of policy ideas and even basic political direction - a Cones Hotline unveiled now would be a significant piece of policy compared to the sod-all of substance filling the farcical double parliamentary term.
Yes, you may well stay in office - its just possible you could pull off a Brexit that isn't an ELE for the party, combined with Corbyn getting ever more batshit. But it won't be Tory ideas you're implementing. Because despite all the bluster and the denial, there are some basic home truths out there in people's consciousness that can't be denied or ignored any longer. The cost of living is getting silly, we're both building masses of houses and having a mass shortage in houses people can afford, cuts to front line services in health education and social care imperil the basic viability of these services, crime is rising as police cuts steepen, "employment" doesn't always pay the bills or provide any stability. All at a time when the national debt increased by 50% AND personal debt hit crisis point.
These issues have been created by blind ideology and ignorance. Ordinarily the party responsible should be facing the chop. But despite Corbyn having pointed out these realities AND changed the narrative he is still so polarising that Labour aren't surging on. I expect that "Corbynism" - policies that were the mainstream political centreground until the mid 80s - is here to stay. But unless the old man steps aside for someone else I struggle to see how Labour are in government implementing it
It would be useful to have some idea of Labour's priority list of policies. For example, is Corbyn, if he wins, going to spend the first three years of parliamentary time getting complex nationalisations of utilities, water and Royal Mail through? Meanwhile, nothing happens on say all his talk of R&D investment, house building, tackling low pay etc.
I wonder how Mr Attlee's Government managed to do it.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
...
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The life expectancy for a Lib Dem MP who did that would be roughly equal to that of a Tory MP who voted to give the Falklands to Argentina while bailing out Venezuela by cutting pensions, or a Labour MP who voted for ATOS to take a majority shareholding in the NHS.
There is no political space for the Lib Dems to support any EU deal without a binding referendum with a remain option (whatever the practicalities of that as discussed as nauseam.) The Lib Dem membership (albeit on the right side of the issue in my view) is developing a blinkered obsession just as prevalent in the opposite direction on the Tory right - but it is removing any possibility of them being involved in any compromise late in the day. I can't see any circumstances where the membership could now back away from the 2nd referendum line, whatever the costs of not doing so.
Erm, wasn't the party pretty split on Leave/Remain?
2/3 remain 1/3 leave at the referendum. Much more skewed now after the huge influx of young anti-Brexit members since, for whom this is the biggest political priority (and obviously campaigning so strongly has alienated their Leave voters)
That's the point I'm making though - as the party has defined itself as anti-Brexit, it's attracted exactly those who agree passionately, and it's the zeal of these new and existing members (with a clear majority) who make being involved with compromises later impossible. There's a fervour matching that on the hard right that's a clear mirror image.
Those on the other side who think they have any prospect of getting Lib Dem votes on a deal because the likes of IDS and JRM won't support it, don't understand the party.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP votes for any deal getting through uncontrolled and staying in the single market after all unlikely.
.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height oo).
The life expectancy for a Lib Dem MP who did that would be roughly equal to that of a Tory MP who voted to give the Falklands to Argentina while bailing out Venezuela by cutting pensions, or a Labour MP who voted for ATOS to take a majority shareholding in the NHS.
There is no political space for the Lib Dems to support any EU deal without a binding referendum with a remain option (whatever the practicalities of that as discussed as nauseam.) The eferendum line, whatever the costs of not doing so.
80% of LD voters voted Remain, surely it would be political suicide for the LDs to vote against a deal with the EU by voting with Rees-Mogg, Patterson and Skinner etc.There is also nothing to stop them arguing the deal should also be put to a referendum for approval
No, quite the reverse. As a Lib Dem councillor, I know the party on this. The party membership have backed the leadership into a corner on any compromises with regards to supporting a deal. Have a look at the emergency motion that was passed on this at Autumn conference: https://www.libdems.org.uk/conference-autumn-17-f17a-opposing-brexit
The one possible exception I could see the membership relenting on might be full single market and customs union access in perpetuity, but I imagine we would be the other side of a general election if we are heading there.
If the LDs vote against an EU deal I suggest the Tories shove them in government with Corbyn and the SNP and let them deal with the shitstorm that results. As the likely result of any general election would be a Corbyn minority government with LD confidence and supply the LDs can then face the consequences of hard Brexit given Corbyn won't agree to the single market and free movement and alienating his working class Labour Leaver vote.
Good article Nick. As you suggest, the key to election wins is to reassure voters of your principal opponent that it’s safe to switch. Witness the hard work in opposition by both Blair and Cameron. I think that Corbyn still has a long way to go when it comes to attracting Tories to vote for him though.
Do LabourList readers like being patronised so much, or, when you speculate about how few people could find Venezuela on a map, do you not include the LL readership?
I wonder how Mr Attlee's Government managed to do it.
They didn't. Why do you think Macmillan's pledge of 300,000 houses a year and a manifesto called 'set the people free' were effective in 1950 and 1951?
I think you'll find as well via a 31% devaluation under Cripps they actually cut pay in real terms - plus of course instituting far stricter food rationing.
The Attlee government prioritised their programme of nationalisation and reorganisation over pretty much everything else and that came at a pretty severe cost even though the money they offered to nationalised industries could be derisory (outside the fantasies of Christian Wolmar I don't know of anyone who thinks the money paid for the railways went near to meeting their value). It also of course made medium term investment quite difficult - three of the big four railway companies simply stopped spending money (the Southern was a dazzling exception).
Whether they were right or wrong to do it is a different question and depends on whether you think long term policy or short term fiscal reality is the more important. In 1945 Labour thought the former, they have now clearly switched to the latter.
Mr. P, Labour are wibbling about a binding vote in Parliament on the deal. If that happens, then the consequence of it being voted down has to be (in a purely logical sense) either departing with no deal, or another referendum.
There I disagree - with your second point.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly romised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP d staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The Opposition simply want to make life as hard as possible for the government which, to be fair, is their job.
If the opposition says a deal has to be agreed in all circumstances then promptly votes against that deal how on earth can they be taken seriously as a viable government?
Rather more seriously than the ones who got us into this position in the first place.
The Tory PM at the time campaigned rather more vigorously for Remain than Corbyn did, it was 17 million British voters who voted Leave.
The Tory PM at the time did not campaign at all vigorously for Remain. He campaigned against Leave, which is not quite the same thing.
"Nicola’s party got smashed on June 8th and isn’t going to put its remaining 35 MPs at risk by doing anything that would facilitate an early election."
I would hate pb'ers to get carried away with the idea that the SNP is a spent force. 35 MP's out of the 56 Scottish seats is better support than Theresa May has, and the three full scale Scottish polls since the GE show increased support. The latest one, from YouGov, on the 9th October, has:
SNP 40% (+3) Labour 30% (+3) Conservatives 23% (-6) Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
The really delusional part of the above quote is to assert that the SNP would support the Tories in any way or abstain in a confidence vote. The only reason why they abstained in the vote for the recent GE was that everyone thought it would lead to an increased Tory majority, and nobody thinks that now. If it comes to a vote, don't expect the SNP to sit on its hands.
I wonder how Mr Attlee's Government managed to do it.
They didn't. Why do you think Macmillan's pledge of 300,000 houses a year and a manifesto called 'set the people free' were effective in 1950 and 1951?
I think you'll find as well via a 31% devaluation under Cripps they actually cut pay in real terms - plus of course instituting far stricter food rationing.
The Attlee government prioritised their programme of nationalisation and reorganisation over pretty much everything else and that came at a pretty severe cost even though the money they offered to nationalised industries could be derisory (outside the fantasies of Christian Wolmar I don't know of anyone who thinks the money paid for the railways went near to meeting their value). It also of course made medium term investment quite difficult - three of the big four railway companies simply stopped spending money (the Southern was a dazzling exception).
Whether they were right or wrong to do it is a different question and depends on whether you think long term policy or short term fiscal reality is the more important. In 1945 Labour thought the former, they have now clearly switched to the latter.
Labour got more votes than the Tories in both elections. And the Tory total included the Ulster Unionists.
It would be useful to have some idea of Labour's priority list of policies. For example, is Corbyn, if he wins, going to spend the first three years of parliamentary time getting complex nationalisations of utilities, water and Royal Mail through? Meanwhile, nothing happens on say all his talk of R&D investment, house building, tackling low pay etc.
Great minds think alike (cf. my Labour List piece).
For me the most interesting insight in this piece was that McDonnell is more willing to compromise than Corbyn. This is slightly surprising as he is usually considered - even within Labour - as a dyed in the wool marxist. Labour needs to do more to reassure people that it is committed to evidence-based policy making and willing to be compromise with reality when required. If McDonnell is able to do this Labour's position will strengthen.
The life expectancy for a Lib Dem MP who did that would be roughly equal to that of a Tory MP who voted to give the Falklands to Argentina while bailing out Venezuela by cutting pensions, or a Labour MP who voted for ATOS to take a majority shareholding in the NHS.
There is no political space for the Lib Dems to support any EU deal without a binding referendum with a remain option (whatever the practicalities of that as discussed as nauseam.) The Lib Dem membership (albeit on the right side of the issue in my view) is developing a blinkered obsession just as prevalent in the opposite direction on the Tory right - but it is removing any possibility of them being involved in any compromise late in the day. I can't see any circumstances where the membership could now back away from the 2nd referendum line, whatever the costs of not doing so.
As a committed Remainer and active LibDem member, I'm not sure about that.
I foresee the A50 deadline being extended by mutual agreement on condition that the UK does not take part in the EU elections in 2019. The result of the protracted negotiations will be controlled by Parliament rather than the Government and will probably be the softest of Brexits i.e. remaining in the single market and customs union, no separate free trade, paying our dues, subject to ECJ in many areas, fudge on free movement, but formally outside the EU i.e. the political union so referendum result honoured.
I see this being acceptable to a significant majority, having been to the cliff edge of a crash out. And being totally fed up of the whole thing. Polls will show that, in a second referendum, this would have a large majority over staying in. In those circumstances, LibDems might support such a deal (and support legislation banning any further referenda as in Germany).
"Nicola’s party got smashed on June 8th and isn’t going to put its remaining 35 MPs at risk by doing anything that would facilitate an early election."
I would hate pb'ers to get carried away with the idea that the SNP is a spent force. 35 MP's out of the 56 Scottish seats is better support than Theresa May has, and the three full scale Scottish polls since the GE show increased support. The latest one, from YouGov, on the 9th October, has:
SNP 40% (+3) Labour 30% (+3) Conservatives 23% (-6) Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
The really delusional part of the above quote is to assert that the SNP would support the Tories in any way or abstain in a confidence vote. The only reason why they abstained in the vote for the recent GE was that everyone thought it would lead to an increased Tory majority, and nobody thinks that now. If it comes to a vote, don't expect the SNP to sit on its hands.
At GE15 the SNP won 56 of the 59 Scottsh seats with 50% of the Scottish vote.
On June 18th they lost 21 of those seats and the ones they retain almost all have very small majorities. The biggest SNP vote in ny seat is 46.7% and the overall average vote share was 36.7%
The Tory PM at the time did not campaign at all vigorously for Remain. He campaigned against Leave, which is not quite the same thing.
Nobody campaigned vigorously for Remain. The lack of a positive case being put was very telling. In many ways, it was a playbook followed by the Conservative campaign in the 2017 General. With a similar outcome from the voters.
You forgot the bit where your mates didn't let you have any of the curry.
.
We've been called out on an emergency and want to take our takeaway with us understandably. They want to keep all the curry for themselves and for us to pay the bill in full.
But we haven't though, have we? We've decided to sod off.
Yes we've decided to leave and take what we've paid for with us or if they won't let us then not pay anything towards the bill. It's not unreasonable in the slightest.
You don't get to walk out of a contract half way through and then say "well I'm not getting the benefits any more, so I'm not paying". You agreed that, you might be able to negotiate some form of exit bill that's lower, but you can't say "Sorry, not paying you a penny" and walk off - especially if you are reliant on negotiating a new deal afterwards, which we are.
The delusions of Brexiteers have betrayed Britain's national interest by putting us in a negotiation where we were always going to be at that disadvantage. It's dafter, in many ways than the xenophobic case for Brexit. Stop immigrants and damn the consequences at least makes sense on its own terms. Welching on a comprehensive free trade agreement in the name of national interest and free trade and then demanding other countries act in your interest and help you out rather than enforcing obligations and interests really doesn't.
The "contract" that was signed involved benefits from the EU in exchange for money from the UK for the budget. They want to stop the benefits so they can't expect payment in full for something they aren't going to provide . Come on it's not exactly rocket science.
Incidentally if a country that was a net beneficiary to the EU was to leave do you think the EU would insist they continue to take the rest of the money set out in the budget after they left?
People wanted to leave the EU, if you can think of a better way to get out of it then please explain how exactly. As far as I can see it shows that we should never have signed up to this ridiculous organisation. Countries that never paid in anything to the EU get treated far better than we are.
Incidentally if a country that was a net beneficiary to the EU was to leave do you think the EU would insist they continue to take the rest of the money set out in the budget after they left?
Net beneficiaries by their very nature are unlikely to leave, so we will probably never find out.
However, the number of countries that will be meaningful net beneficiaries of EU largesse will likely reduce markedy during the 2020's.
I wonder how Mr Attlee's Government managed to do it.
They didn't. Why do you think Macmillan's pledge of 300,000 houses a year and a manifesto called 'set the people free' were effective in 1950 and 1951?
I think you'll find as well via a 31% devaluation under Cripps they actually cut pay in real terms - plus of course instituting far stricter food rationing.
The Attlee government prioritised their programme of nationalisation and reorganisation over pretty much everything else and that came at a pretty severe cost even though the money they offered to nationalised industries could be derisory (outside the fantasies of Christian Wolmar I don't know of anyone who thinks the money paid for the railways went near to meeting their value). It also of course made medium term investment quite difficult - three of the big four railway companies simply stopped spending money (the Southern was a dazzling exception).
Whether they were right or wrong to do it is a different question and depends on whether you think long term policy or short term fiscal reality is the more important. In 1945 Labour thought the former, they have now clearly switched to the latter.
Devaluation did not occur until September 1949 and in the same year there was the'bonfire of controls' announced - I think - by Harold Wilson as President of the Board of Trade.The Attlee Government also had a massive domestic programme as reflected in establishing the NHS and expanding the Welfare State.
The "contract" that was signed involved benefits from the EU in exchange for money from the UK for the budget. They want to stop the benefits so they can't expect payment in full for something they aren't going to provide . Come on it's not exactly rocket science.
Incidentally if a country that was a net beneficiary to the EU was to leave do you think the EU would insist they continue to take the rest of the money set out in the budget after they left?
People wanted to leave the EU, if you can think of a better way to get out of it then please explain how exactly. As far as I can see it shows that we should never have signed up to this ridiculous organisation. Countries that never paid in anything to the EU get treated far better than we are.
Maybe. But we are where we are. The Tories have led the UK into a position in which it has no good options. There is the bad option of paying loads of cash to the EU and the worse option of leaving without a deal. There are no other options.
The consequence of voting it down would be leaving with no deal. There is no mechanism for us to unilaterally extend Article 50. We are leaving whether we like it or not now - we're committed. If we reject the deal, we leave on WTO terms.
Whether Labour have twigged that simple truth yet is another question.
It is unlikely a full FTA will be agreed and finalised by April 2019 which is why May wants the 2 year transition period.
Labour's rhetoric has been vaguely nonsensical, but largely because the whole situation is. Invoking Article 50 has left us in a position where we either take almost any deal offered or crash out in a way we were told was an impossibility during the referendum campaign. It's a bizarre form of politics where both parties are k. The former would make it abundantly romised.
In the end May might need Labour and LD and SNP d staying in the single market after all unlikely.
I'm pretty sure that all Opposition MP's (except perhaps a handful of Labour rebels) will vote against any deal that the government puts to the Commons.
If they do and Britain crashes out without a deal as Labour voted against it it would be the height of hypocrisy and if, as is likely, it ends up with a Corbyn minority government dealing with a hard Brexit UK that would be nothing less than what Corbyn deserves. Leave Corbyn to clear up the mess.
(I think the LDs would back a deal with the EU by the way if one could be agreed and possibly the SNP too).
The Opposition simply want to make life as hard as possible for the government which, to be fair, is their job.
If the opposition says a deal has to be agreed in all circumstances then promptly votes against that deal how on earth can they be taken seriously as a viable government?
Rather more seriously than the ones who got us into this position in the first place.
The Tory PM at the time campaigned rather more vigorously for Remain than Corbyn did, it was 17 million British voters who voted Leave.
The Tory PM at the time did not campaign at all vigorously for Remain. He campaigned against Leave, which is not quite the same thing.
Maybe if the Remain campaign had actually campaigned on the positives of EU membership, the result of the referendum may have been different.
The "contract" that was signed involved benefits from the EU in exchange for money from the UK for the budget. They want to stop the benefits so they can't expect payment in full for something they aren't going to provide . Come on it's not exactly rocket science.
Incidentally if a country that was a net beneficiary to the EU was to leave do you think the EU would insist they continue to take the rest of the money set out in the budget after they left?
People wanted to leave the EU, if you can think of a better way to get out of it then please explain how exactly. As far as I can see it shows that we should never have signed up to this ridiculous organisation. Countries that never paid in anything to the EU get treated far better than we are.
Maybe. But we are where we are. The Tories have led the UK into a position in which it has no good options. There is the bad option of paying loads of cash to the EU and the worse option of leaving without a deal. There are no other options.
The Tories? I think you'll find that succesive Governments since the seventies have led the UK into a position where Brexit is far from easy. But partly because of Governments taking that approach - ever closer union by stealth, without a democratic mandate - the people have said "we want out" at the first opportunity they were given.
The option of paying loads of cash to the EU reaches a tipping point where that is just not worth paying. There is a game of poker to be played as to where that point is. Playing that hand well is the other option. Convincing the EU that getting £30 billion is better than not getting £80 billion is the name of that game.
The option of paying loads of cash to the EU reaches a tipping point where that is just not worth paying. There is a game of poker to be played as to where that point is. Playing that hand well is the other option. Convincing the EU that getting £30 billion is better than not getting £80 billion is the name of that game.
Why should France and Germany pick up the tab for commitments made by the UK? "We're leaving the EU, not Europe," was the cry of the Brexiteers, so why should they pay for it?
Devaluation did not occur until September 1949 and in the same year there was the'bonfire of controls' announced - I think - by Harold Wilson as President of the Board of Trade.The Attlee Government also had a massive domestic programme as reflected in establishing the NHS and expanding the Welfare State.
My point was not that they didn't have an ambitious domestic programme. They clearly did. My point was that it came at a very substantial cost elsewhere which your earlier post had not considered. Bread first rationed and then increased in price by 50% being one example.
I am not making a judgement on whether that was wise or not - merely saying it was a choice, and one that cost them badly.
(@OldKingCole yes, I know they got more votes in both elections including their highest ever vote share in 1951. But they did it by a core vote strategy that piled up huge votes where they weren't needed, while actively alienating everyone else. A bit like Hilary Clinton. Shinwell and Bevan saying they only cared for the workers and comparing other voters to vermin at the same time as putting up the cost of living and cutting back on house building was wth hindsight not the wisest of strategies. Unfortunately Bevan and Shinwell didn't understand that mere numbers of votes don't win you elections under FPTP.)
The option of paying loads of cash to the EU reaches a tipping point where that is just not worth paying. There is a game of poker to be played as to where that point is. Playing that hand well is the other option. Convincing the EU that getting £30 billion is better than not getting £80 billion is the name of that game.
Why should France and Germany pick up the tab for commitments made by the UK? "We're leaving the EU, not Europe," was the cry of the Brexiteers, so why should they pay for it?
The UK should keep paying even after it leaves? It's a view...
The option of paying loads of cash to the EU reaches a tipping point where that is just not worth paying. There is a game of poker to be played as to where that point is. Playing that hand well is the other option. Convincing the EU that getting £30 billion is better than not getting £80 billion is the name of that game.
Why should France and Germany pick up the tab for commitments made by the UK? "We're leaving the EU, not Europe," was the cry of the Brexiteers, so why should they pay for it?
The UK should keep paying even after it leaves? It's a view...
No, that would be an advantageous payment schedule... No need to settle the accounts in a lump sum.
Rather more seriously than the ones who got us into this position in the first place.
The Tory PM at the time campaigned rather more vigorously for Remain than Corbyn did, it was 17 million British voters who voted Leave.
The Tory PM at the time did not campaign at all vigorously for Remain. He campaigned against Leave, which is not quite the same thing.
Maybe if the Remain campaign had actually campaigned on the positives of EU membership, the result of the referendum may have been different.
The problem was that the positive argument for not leaving in the EU isn't particularly inspiring, being, basically: life will continue in roughly the same vein. It's similar to the positive argument for not jumping off a cliff or not burning your own house down.
The "contract" that was signed involved benefits from the EU in exchange for money from the UK for the budget. They want to stop the benefits so they can't expect payment in full for something they aren't going to provide . Come on it's not exactly rocket science.
Incidentally if a country that was a net beneficiary to the EU was to leave do you think the EU would insist they continue to take the rest of the money set out in the budget after they left?
People wanted to leave the EU, if you can think of a better way to get out of it then please explain how exactly. As far as I can see it shows that we should never have signed up to this ridiculous organisation. Countries that never paid in anything to the EU get treated far better than we are.
Maybe. But we are where we are. The Tories have led the UK into a position in which it has no good options. There is the bad option of paying loads of cash to the EU and the worse option of leaving without a deal. There are no other options.
The Tories? I think you'll find that succesive Governments since the seventies have led the UK into a position where Brexit is far from easy. But partly because of Governments taking that approach - ever closer union by stealth, without a democratic mandate - the people have said "we want out" at the first opportunity they were given.
The option of paying loads of cash to the EU reaches a tipping point where that is just not worth paying.
Yes of course. If the EU demands more than the likely cost of a no-deal Brexit then it would not be worth paying. But the cost of a no-deal Brexit would be far greater than any of the numbers currently being banded about as possible sums that might have to be paid. And the EU knows this.
The option of paying loads of cash to the EU reaches a tipping point where that is just not worth paying. There is a game of poker to be played as to where that point is. Playing that hand well is the other option. Convincing the EU that getting £30 billion is better than not getting £80 billion is the name of that game.
Why should France and Germany pick up the tab for commitments made by the UK? "We're leaving the EU, not Europe," was the cry of the Brexiteers, so why should they pay for it?
Show me where we have signed up for £80 billion of commitments.
Everybody knows the subtext of these negotoations - get the UK to pay a price that discourages anybody else from saying "that deal will do for me too....cheerio". If the EU was such a wonderful institution, we wouldn't be seeing this kneecapping strategy playing out.
The "contract" that was signed involved benefits from the EU in exchange for money from the UK for the budget. They want to stop the benefits so they can't expect payment in full for something they aren't going to provide . Come on it's not exactly rocket science.
Incidentally if a country that was a net beneficiary to the EU was to leave do you think the EU would insist they continue to take the rest of the money set out in the budget after they left?
People wanted to leave the EU, if you can think of a better way to get out of it then please explain how exactly. As far as I can see it shows that we should never have signed up to this ridiculous organisation. Countries that never paid in anything to the EU get treated far better than we are.
Maybe. But we are where we are. The Tories have led the UK into a position in which it has no good options. There is the bad option of paying loads of cash to the EU and the worse option of leaving without a deal. There are no other options.
The Tories? I think you'll find that succesive Governments since the seventies have led the UK into a position where Brexit is far from easy. But partly because of Governments taking that approach - ever closer union by stealth, without a democratic mandate - the people have said "we want out" at the first opportunity they were given.
The option of paying loads of cash to the EU reaches a tipping point where that is just not worth paying.
Yes of course. If the EU demands more than the likely cost of a no-deal Brexit then it would not be worth paying. But the cost of a no-deal Brexit would be far greater than any of the numbers currently being banded about as possible sums that might have to be paid. And the EU knows this.
It is not a cost that would be borne solely by the UK though. A UK walking away with no cheque handed over immediately throws the EU into a budget crisis. Plus it massivley dimishes the economic credibility of the EU with the rest of the world.
The Tory PM at the time campaigned rather more vigorously for Remain than Corbyn did, it was 17 million British voters who voted Leave.
The Tory PM at the time did not campaign at all vigorously for Remain. He campaigned against Leave, which is not quite the same thing.
Maybe if the Remain campaign had actually campaigned on the positives of EU membership, the result of the referendum may have been different.
Yes -- look at the turnaround in Sindyref when after weeks of "too wee, too poor, too stupid" from the official campaign, Gordon Brown intervened to make a positive case for the union. Too many of our politicians seem to have forgotten that voters need to be inspired. Even Donald Trump, while scapegoating practically everyone, held out the positive vision of more jobs and making America great again.
Comments
Their paucity of ambition is startling.
Mr. Topping, if all three parties promise a referendum in their manifestos and then the winning party decides to just not bother, that isn't representing the electorate and it isn't respecting democracy.
QMV was stupid but in the grand scheme of things not as harmful as being in a situation where we have no vote, no say in the development but still have to accept the consequences
As far as the language is concerned, we were told that the 'silbo gomero’ was now taught in schools. It’s a whistled version of Spanish, though, not a distinct language.
End austerity, a proper housebuilding program, soft brexit, an upswing in the global economy, normalisation of interest rates and significantly increased tax receipts to balance the books in ~5 years.
Theresa's gonna rise like a phoenix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToqNa0rqUtY
Don't laugh.
*ain't never gonna happen whether we're in our out, btw.
Good afternoon, everyone.
If you are a Conservative trying to achieve things for Britain you should be worried. After 13 years in opposition and 7 years of mostly coalition government you are bereft of policy ideas and even basic political direction - a Cones Hotline unveiled now would be a significant piece of policy compared to the sod-all of substance filling the farcical double parliamentary term.
Yes, you may well stay in office - its just possible you could pull off a Brexit that isn't an ELE for the party, combined with Corbyn getting ever more batshit. But it won't be Tory ideas you're implementing. Because despite all the bluster and the denial, there are some basic home truths out there in people's consciousness that can't be denied or ignored any longer. The cost of living is getting silly, we're both building masses of houses and having a mass shortage in houses people can afford, cuts to front line services in health education and social care imperil the basic viability of these services, crime is rising as police cuts steepen, "employment" doesn't always pay the bills or provide any stability. All at a time when the national debt increased by 50% AND personal debt hit crisis point.
These issues have been created by blind ideology and ignorance. Ordinarily the party responsible should be facing the chop. But despite Corbyn having pointed out these realities AND changed the narrative he is still so polarising that Labour aren't surging on. I expect that "Corbynism" - policies that were the mainstream political centreground until the mid 80s - is here to stay. But unless the old man steps aside for someone else I struggle to see how Labour are in government implementing it
Of course it took Blair to beat Major, Major beat Kinnock.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/oct/21/rent-property-letting-agent-fees-government-ban
6th richest man in the USA ? WTF would he know about the British voter's mindset ?
There is no political space for the Lib Dems to support any EU deal without a binding referendum with a remain option (whatever the practicalities of that as discussed as nauseam.) The Lib Dem membership (albeit on the right side of the issue in my view) is developing a blinkered obsession just as prevalent in the opposite direction on the Tory right - but it is removing any possibility of them being involved in any compromise late in the day. I can't see any circumstances where the membership could now back away from the 2nd referendum line, whatever the costs of not doing so.
Given where the tories are Corbyn should be miles ahead now if he is to win the next GE. Opposition to him looks pretty entrenched and for that reason he needs to reach out beyond the hard left. He doesn't look capable of this.
https://labourlist.org/2017/10/nick-palmer-nail-economic-competence-and-then-show-we-can-deliver-a-serious-socialist-government-led-by-corbyn/
The one possible exception I could see the membership relenting on might be full single market and customs union access in perpetuity, but I imagine we would be the other side of a general election if we are heading there.
You don't get to walk out of a contract half way through and then say "well I'm not getting the benefits any more, so I'm not paying". You agreed that, you might be able to negotiate some form of exit bill that's lower, but you can't say "Sorry, not paying you a penny" and walk off - especially if you are reliant on negotiating a new deal afterwards, which we are.
The delusions of Brexiteers have betrayed Britain's national interest by putting us in a negotiation where we were always going to be at that disadvantage. It's dafter, in many ways than the xenophobic case for Brexit. Stop immigrants and damn the consequences at least makes sense on its own terms. Welching on a comprehensive free trade agreement in the name of national interest and free trade and then demanding other countries act in your interest and help you out rather than enforcing obligations and interests really doesn't.
But - if you aren't a fan of democracy - the EU should be right up your street.
That's the point I'm making though - as the party has defined itself as anti-Brexit, it's attracted exactly those who agree passionately, and it's the zeal of these new and existing members (with a clear majority) who make being involved with compromises later impossible. There's a fervour matching that on the hard right that's a clear mirror image.
Those on the other side who think they have any prospect of getting Lib Dem votes on a deal because the likes of IDS and JRM won't support it, don't understand the party.
The 6th richest man in the USA probably has a bit more understanding and perspective.
Do LabourList readers like being patronised so much, or, when you speculate about how few people could find Venezuela on a map, do you not include the LL readership?
I think you'll find as well via a 31% devaluation under Cripps they actually cut pay in real terms - plus of course instituting far stricter food rationing.
The Attlee government prioritised their programme of nationalisation and reorganisation over pretty much everything else and that came at a pretty severe cost even though the money they offered to nationalised industries could be derisory (outside the fantasies of Christian Wolmar I don't know of anyone who thinks the money paid for the railways went near to meeting their value). It also of course made medium term investment quite difficult - three of the big four railway companies simply stopped spending money (the Southern was a dazzling exception).
Whether they were right or wrong to do it is a different question and depends on whether you think long term policy or short term fiscal reality is the more important. In 1945 Labour thought the former, they have now clearly switched to the latter.
I would hate pb'ers to get carried away with the idea that the SNP is a spent force. 35 MP's out of the 56 Scottish seats is better support than Theresa May has, and the three full scale Scottish polls since the GE show increased support. The latest one, from YouGov, on the 9th October, has:
SNP 40% (+3)
Labour 30% (+3)
Conservatives 23% (-6)
Liberal Democrats 5% (-2)
The really delusional part of the above quote is to assert that the SNP would support the Tories in any way or abstain in a confidence vote. The only reason why they abstained in the vote for the recent GE was that everyone thought it would lead to an increased Tory majority, and nobody thinks that now. If it comes to a vote, don't expect the SNP to sit on its hands.
As Dr Palmer has a doctorate in languages I won't accuse him of being unable to pronounce Venezuela, of course.
Soviet joke - if Socialism were tried in the Sahara desert, what would be the result?
First sand would be available only through rationing, then it would be available only to top party members.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/10/23/everton-sack-ronald-koeman-defeat-arsenal-leaves-toffees-premier/
Just saying.
I foresee the A50 deadline being extended by mutual agreement on condition that the UK does not take part in the EU elections in 2019. The result of the protracted negotiations will be controlled by Parliament rather than the Government and will probably be the softest of Brexits i.e. remaining in the single market and customs union, no separate free trade, paying our dues, subject to ECJ in many areas, fudge on free movement, but formally outside the EU i.e. the political union so referendum result honoured.
I see this being acceptable to a significant majority, having been to the cliff edge of a crash out. And being totally fed up of the whole thing. Polls will show that, in a second referendum, this would have a large majority over staying in. In those circumstances, LibDems might support such a deal (and support legislation banning any further referenda as in Germany).
On June 18th they lost 21 of those seats and the ones they retain almost all have very small majorities. The biggest SNP vote in ny seat is 46.7% and the overall average vote share was 36.7%
This was a terrible election for the party.
Labour are in the best position to capitalise
Incidentally if a country that was a net beneficiary to the EU was to leave do you think the EU would insist they continue to take the rest of the money set out in the budget after they left?
People wanted to leave the EU, if you can think of a better way to get out of it then please explain how exactly. As far as I can see it shows that we should never have signed up to this ridiculous organisation. Countries that never paid in anything to the EU get treated far better than we are.
However, the number of countries that will be meaningful net beneficiaries of EU largesse will likely reduce markedy during the 2020's.
The option of paying loads of cash to the EU reaches a tipping point where that is just not worth paying. There is a game of poker to be played as to where that point is. Playing that hand well is the other option. Convincing the EU that getting £30 billion is better than not getting £80 billion is the name of that game.
I am not making a judgement on whether that was wise or not - merely saying it was a choice, and one that cost them badly.
(@OldKingCole yes, I know they got more votes in both elections including their highest ever vote share in 1951. But they did it by a core vote strategy that piled up huge votes where they weren't needed, while actively alienating everyone else. A bit like Hilary Clinton. Shinwell and Bevan saying they only cared for the workers and comparing other voters to vermin at the same time as putting up the cost of living and cutting back on house building was wth hindsight not the wisest of strategies. Unfortunately Bevan and Shinwell didn't understand that mere numbers of votes don't win you elections under FPTP.)
Everybody knows the subtext of these negotoations - get the UK to pay a price that discourages anybody else from saying "that deal will do for me too....cheerio". If the EU was such a wonderful institution, we wouldn't be seeing this kneecapping strategy playing out.
The EU does not hold all the cards.