Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Tory plotters wanting to oust May need have no worries

SystemSystem Posts: 12,683
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why the Tory plotters wanting to oust May need have no worries about letting Corbyn in

With the Sunday newspaper reports that the CON MPs plotting an early retirement for Mrs May being just 8 MPs short of the 48 required for a confidence vote we could be very close to a formal move against Mrs May.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    If a new leader lost the support of the DUP and then lost a vote of confidence, it's difficult to see how any potential new government could command the support of the house short of a radical ad hoc coalition of (presumably pro-Remain) MPs, so it's not so far-fetched to imagine a scenario which led to an early election.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Second! Like Remain, Corbyn & Yes!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called. No longer does a Prime Minister have it in her or his gift to trot along to the Palace to call a general election.

    I distinctly remember that argument being deployed before May called the GE “she couldn’t call”.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    williamglenn said:

    If a new leader lost the support of the DUP and then lost a vote of confidence, it's difficult to see how any potential new government could command the support of the house short of a radical ad hoc coalition of (presumably pro-Remain) MPs, so it's not so far-fetched to imagine a scenario which led to an early election.

    For once, Mr Glenn, we are in agreement.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    CarlottaVance said:

    This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called. No longer does a Prime Minister have it in her or his gift to trot along to the Palace to call a general election.

    I distinctly remember that argument being deployed before May called the GE “she couldn’t call”.

    TMay had to go through the legal process which actually required LAB MPs to back an early election which at the time looked liked a suicidal decision on their part.

    That's the point. It is this widespread assumption that the world is as it was before the FTPA.

  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    williamglenn said:

    If a new leader lost the support of the DUP and then lost a vote of confidence, it's difficult to see how any potential new government could command the support of the house short of a radical ad hoc coalition of (presumably pro-Remain) MPs, so it's not so far-fetched to imagine a scenario which led to an early election.

    Agreed. But that is a big IF and assumes as well that the SNP would fully back a confidence move as well as all the other parties. Remember that LAB has only got 4 more MPs than it achieved in 2010.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,405
    I have a theory: turkeys don't vote for Christmas. If the Conservative or Democratic Unionist Parties think they would lose out in the case of an election, they they will not conspire to bring one about.

    The DUP, for example, do they really want a Corbyn government? They do not. Might they use the defenestration of May to argue that they have insufficient goodies, but they are unlikely to precipitate a General Election.

    What of the more left wing or Europhile Tories: say, Anna Soubry, Kenneth Clarke or Sarah Wollaston?

    In each case, I believe fear of the damage that Corbyn could do the country (and the risk in Anna's case of losing her seat) will restrain them. That being said, could they become "the bastards" who are a constant thorn in the side of their leader? Yes, they could.

    I think OGH is correct here. The weaker a government, the more likely it is to stagger on, because of fear of the electorate.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    rcs1000 said:

    OK. Economists.

    I know Patrick Minford, I like Patrick Minford, and I have a huge amount of respect for his work.

    And you know, he's right that Brexit could lead to a [Large Number Here] boost to the UK economy. The problem is that Brexit has dramatically widened the dispersal between the various outcomes for the UK economy. The opportunities are greater than they have ever been, but so are the risks.

    There is one area where I find him naive, and that is the mechanics of international trade. Patrick would like to return to a world where countries did not impose tariffs on goods and services (which I applaud). And he would also like to see sovereignty for standards setting at a national level.

    However, I think I he underestimates the prevalence and impacts of non-tariff barriers (NTBs). We see NTBs all the time in the service sector: to teach skiing in France or Switzerland, you need to have certain accreditations, for example. But these barriers also exist in manufactured goods. Industries within countries lobby elected representatives to put in place certain requirements, that mean that trade is far from free. There's always a good reason for these laws (skis sold in Japan have to be manufactured this special way, because snow is different there...), but their effect is to stifle competition.

    In a world where we unilaterally removed tariffs from imports, we would have limited opportunity to push for mutual standards recognition (which is the true goal of most free trade agreements these days).

    Anyway: this will no doubt swallowed by a 6am new thread, so I shan't write any more :-)

    He’s not right that Brexit could lead to a large boost to the UK economy.

    There’s no chance of any government enacting his policies, and it’s highly doubtful they would have the tremendous positive effects he claims.

    His model makes some cracking assumptions including the fact that UK trade will be more integrated with the EU after Brexit than before.

    https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21727078-patrick-minford-thinks-gdp-could-increase-68-most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt

    https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2017/04/19/will-eliminating-uk-tariffs-boost-uk-gdp-by-4-percent/
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,345
    edited November 2017
    If the present Government is so weak that it cannot get key legislation on Brexit through Parliament yet Tory MPs will not allow a General Election, then we may be headed for a one or two year National Government to manage Brexit in the national interest.

    Step forward Vince Cable.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,405
    rkrkrk said:

    He’s not right that Brexit could lead to a large boost to the UK economy.

    There’s no chance of any government enacting his policies, and it’s highly doubtful they would have the tremendous positive effects he claims.

    His model makes some cracking assumptions including the fact that UK trade will be more integrated with the EU after Brexit than before.

    https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21727078-patrick-minford-thinks-gdp-could-increase-68-most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt

    https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2017/04/19/will-eliminating-uk-tariffs-boost-uk-gdp-by-4-percent/

    In all likelihood, the UK will do a greater proportion of its trade with the EU post Brexit than they do now.

    Let me repeat this, because it's so surprising, the UK will likely do a greater proportion of its trade with the EU post Brexit than now.

    Why? Because when we leave the Customs Union, we lose the EU's existing trade deals (Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Israel, South Africa, etc.). We also lose the treaties covering mutual recognition of standards (the US, Japan).

    Now, these will all (in all likelihood) be replicated fairly quickly, although with Dr Fox at the DfIT nothing is certain. For a period, though, we will have the least unchanged terms of trade with the EU. For that reason, the proportion of trade that goes to the EU is likely to rise, at least in the near term.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    He’s not right that Brexit could lead to a large boost to the UK economy.

    There’s no chance of any government enacting his policies, and it’s highly doubtful they would have the tremendous positive effects he claims.

    His model makes some cracking assumptions including the fact that UK trade will be more integrated with the EU after Brexit than before.

    https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21727078-patrick-minford-thinks-gdp-could-increase-68-most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt

    https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2017/04/19/will-eliminating-uk-tariffs-boost-uk-gdp-by-4-percent/

    In all likelihood, the UK will do a greater proportion of its trade with the EU post Brexit than they do now.

    Let me repeat this, because it's so surprising, the UK will likely do a greater proportion of its trade with the EU post Brexit than now.

    Why? Because when we leave the Customs Union, we lose the EU's existing trade deals (Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Israel, South Africa, etc.). We also lose the treaties covering mutual recognition of standards (the US, Japan).

    Now, these will all (in all likelihood) be replicated fairly quickly, although with Dr Fox at the DfIT nothing is certain. For a period, though, we will have the least unchanged terms of trade with the EU. For that reason, the proportion of trade that goes to the EU is likely to rise, at least in the near term.
    How does that help?
    Hardly seems to support your assertion of a large boost to the UK economy.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    Barnesian said:

    If the present Government is so weak that it cannot get key legislation on Brexit through Parliament yet Tory MPs will not allow a General Election, then we may be headed for a one or two year National Government to manage Brexit in the national interest.

    Step forward Vince Cable.

    I wouldn’t bet on it at 500/1.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    MikeSmithson said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called. No longer does a Prime Minister have it in her or his gift to trot along to the Palace to call a general election.

    I distinctly remember that argument being deployed before May called the GE “she couldn’t call”.

    LAB MPs to back an early election which at the time looked liked a suicidal decision on their part.
    Doesn’t look suicidal now.....
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    rcs1000 said:

    because of fear of the electorate.

    The majority of whom voted for Brexit.......

    Love the latest from the EU “pay up or your doggy gets it....”
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,405
    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    He’s not right that Brexit could lead to a large boost to the UK economy.

    There’s no chance of any government enacting his policies, and it’s highly doubtful they would have the tremendous positive effects he claims.

    His model makes some cracking assumptions including the fact that UK trade will be more integrated with the EU after Brexit than before.

    https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21727078-patrick-minford-thinks-gdp-could-increase-68-most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt

    https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2017/04/19/will-eliminating-uk-tariffs-boost-uk-gdp-by-4-percent/

    In all likelihood, the UK will do a greater proportion of its trade with the EU post Brexit than they do now.

    Let me repeat this, because it's so surprising, the UK will likely do a greater proportion of its trade with the EU post Brexit than now.

    Why? Because when we leave the Customs Union, we lose the EU's existing trade deals (Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Israel, South Africa, etc.). We also lose the treaties covering mutual recognition of standards (the US, Japan).

    Now, these will all (in all likelihood) be replicated fairly quickly, although with Dr Fox at the DfIT nothing is certain. For a period, though, we will have the least unchanged terms of trade with the EU. For that reason, the proportion of trade that goes to the EU is likely to rise, at least in the near term.
    How does that help?
    Hardly seems to support your assertion of a large boost to the UK economy.
    The UK could have a boost from Brexit. It could take a big hit.

    Brexit is not a single thing, and is merely one of the various choices that our country has to make.

    We could, for example, choose to "pay up", and write a large cheque to the EU in return for similar levels of access to now, and a sensible extended transition period (during which we replicated the existing agreements the EU has). We could also use the opportunity to deregulate our economy further. While it would make our farmers upset, we could lower the price of food by removing tariffs from the import of various commodities.

    I think that would be a boost to the UK economy.

    Alternatively, we could tell the EU to "f*ck themselves", and find ourselves crashing out of existing trade agreements with the EU and third countries. This would cause numerous problems, and a likely precipitous collapse in gross capital formation, which would flow through into a serious recession. Said serious recession would then result in a Corbyn election, which would have the same impact that Tsipras had in Greece.

    I reckon that would be pretty disastrous for the UK economy.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,345
    rkrkrk said:

    Barnesian said:

    If the present Government is so weak that it cannot get key legislation on Brexit through Parliament yet Tory MPs will not allow a General Election, then we may be headed for a one or two year National Government to manage Brexit in the national interest.

    Step forward Vince Cable.

    I wouldn’t bet on it at 500/1.
    i would at 500/1! It's unlikely but there is a scenario.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,405
    Barnesian said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Barnesian said:

    If the present Government is so weak that it cannot get key legislation on Brexit through Parliament yet Tory MPs will not allow a General Election, then we may be headed for a one or two year National Government to manage Brexit in the national interest.

    Step forward Vince Cable.

    I wouldn’t bet on it at 500/1.
    i would at 500/1! It's unlikely but there is a scenario.
    What time horizon? One year?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Great start to the week.....

    https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/929945780680581120?s=17
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited November 2017
    rcs1000 said:

    Alternatively, we could tell the EU to "f*ck themselves", and find ourselves crashing out of existing trade agreements with the EU and third countries. This would cause numerous problems, and a likely precipitous collapse in gross capital formation, which would flow through into a serious recession. Said serious recession would then result in a Corbyn election, which would have the same impact that Tsipras had in Greece.

    Or the EU continues with its current salami tactics. 60bn or crash out, if we agree they bank that, then, ECJ oversight or crash out, then, hand over your reproductive organs or crash out, until such times as the public gets sufficiently pissed off that it wont countenance any sort of deal, and all the above happens anyway.

    The EU woefully misjudged the desire of the British public to leave, they are going to similarly woefully misjudge the tolerance of the British public for being blackmailed.

  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    rcs1000 said:



    The UK could have a boost from Brexit. It could take a big hit.

    Brexit is not a single thing, and is merely one of the various choices that our country has to make.

    We could, for example, choose to "pay up", and write a large cheque to the EU in return for similar levels of access to now, and a sensible extended transition period (during which we replicated the existing agreements the EU has). We could also use the opportunity to deregulate our economy further. While it would make our farmers upset, we could lower the price of food by removing tariffs from the import of various commodities.

    I think that would be a boost to the UK economy.

    I agree that the best thing to do would be to have a long transition period that lets us sort out deals with other countries. [Note we should not be aiming to replicate, we should be aiming to adapt the EU deals to better suit the UK economy - which will take more time].

    I see that as minimising short-term pain, whilst increasing the chances of a long-term positive future. But there will be pain in the short term as we re-orient.

    But what are these deregulations that are going to boost our economy? Why haven't they been done already? Will they jeopardise the transition period with the EU or our future trading relationship with them?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,345
    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Barnesian said:

    If the present Government is so weak that it cannot get key legislation on Brexit through Parliament yet Tory MPs will not allow a General Election, then we may be headed for a one or two year National Government to manage Brexit in the national interest.

    Step forward Vince Cable.

    I wouldn’t bet on it at 500/1.
    i would at 500/1! It's unlikely but there is a scenario.
    What time horizon? One year?
    Next PM
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    CarlottaVance said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called. No longer does a Prime Minister have it in her or his gift to trot along to the Palace to call a general election.

    I distinctly remember that argument being deployed before May called the GE “she couldn’t call”.

    LAB MPs to back an early election which at the time looked liked a suicidal decision on their part.
    Doesn’t look suicidal now.....
    I think that has proved that the opposition will vote for an election in almost all circumstances.

    The only exception I think could be if there were major disputes about the voting system/constituency boundaries/something like that to justify holding off.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    rkrkrk said:

    But what are these deregulations that are going to boost our economy? Why haven't they been done already? Will they jeopardise the transition period with the EU or our future trading relationship with them?

    At the moment we have to apply EU standards to all our products whether for sale to the EU, for internal consumption, or for sale to third countries. If we sell to say Brazil, we have to use both EU and Brazilian standards, non-EU producers are selling to Brazilian standards only, which if more lax than EU standards gives them a considerable advantage.

  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    edited November 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called. No longer does a Prime Minister have it in her or his gift to trot along to the Palace to call a general election.

    I distinctly remember that argument being deployed before May called the GE “she couldn’t call”.

    LAB MPs to back an early election which at the time looked liked a suicidal decision on their part.
    Doesn’t look suicidal now.....
    I think that has proved that the opposition will vote for an election in almost all circumstances.

    The only exception I think could be if there were major disputes about the voting system/constituency boundaries/something like that to justify holding off.
    Thing is, if you spend your life yelling that all Tories are EVIL, they they barbeque babies in their offices and trample the poor under foot, and should be removed from office and consigned to the outer darkness, its quite a hard sell to turn to your supporters and tell them that actually they need to live with the Tories in power for another couple of years for tactical electoral reasons.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Barnesian said:

    If the present Government is so weak that it cannot get key legislation on Brexit through Parliament yet Tory MPs will not allow a General Election, then we may be headed for a one or two year National Government to manage Brexit in the national interest.

    Step forward Vince Cable.

    I wouldn’t bet on it at 500/1.
    i would at 500/1! It's unlikely but there is a scenario.
    What time horizon? One year?
    Next PM
    You can currently lay at 980/1 on betfair.
    You could always offer a couple of quid - you might get a taker!
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called. No longer does a Prime Minister have it in her or his gift to trot along to the Palace to call a general election.

    I distinctly remember that argument being deployed before May called the GE “she couldn’t call”.

    LAB MPs to back an early election which at the time looked liked a suicidal decision on their part.
    Doesn’t look suicidal now.....
    I think that has proved that the opposition will vote for an election in almost all circumstances.

    The only exception I think could be if there were major disputes about the voting system/constituency boundaries/something like that to justify holding off.
    The only people who can make Corbyn PM by Christmas are Tory MPs....
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    AlsoIndigo said:

    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called. No longer does a Prime Minister have it in her or his gift to trot along to the Palace to call a general election.

    I distinctly remember that argument being deployed before May called the GE “she couldn’t call”.

    LAB MPs to back an early election which at the time looked liked a suicidal decision on their part.
    Doesn’t look suicidal now.....
    I think that has proved that the opposition will vote for an election in almost all circumstances.

    The only exception I think could be if there were major disputes about the voting system/constituency boundaries/something like that to justify holding off.
    Thing is, if you spend your life yelling that all Tories are EVIL, they they barbeque babies in their offices and trample the poor under foot, and should be removed from office and consigned to the outer darkness, its quite a hard sell to turn to your supporters and tell them that actually they need to live with the Tories in power for another couple of years for tactical electoral reasons.
    Well, leaving aside the hyperbole, in the event of a Labour govt it's tough to imagine the Tories saying "Actually we think it's best that Gordon Brown/Tony Blair/Ed Miliband/Jeremy Corbyn continue to run the country for now while we sort ourselves out".
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    rkrkrk said:

    AlsoIndigo said:

    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    This, of course, is completely bogus and overlooks the legal mechanics of how general elections are now called. No longer does a Prime Minister have it in her or his gift to trot along to the Palace to call a general election.

    I distinctly remember that argument being deployed before May called the GE “she couldn’t call”.

    LAB MPs to back an early election which at the time looked liked a suicidal decision on their part.
    Doesn’t look suicidal now.....
    I think that has proved that the opposition will vote for an election in almost all circumstances.

    The only exception I think could be if there were major disputes about the voting system/constituency boundaries/something like that to justify holding off.
    Thing is, if you spend your life yelling that all Tories are EVIL, they they barbeque babies in their offices and trample the poor under foot, and should be removed from office and consigned to the outer darkness, its quite a hard sell to turn to your supporters and tell them that actually they need to live with the Tories in power for another couple of years for tactical electoral reasons.
    Well, leaving aside the hyperbole, in the event of a Labour govt it's tough to imagine the Tories saying "Actually we think it's best that Gordon Brown/Tony Blair/Ed Miliband/Jeremy Corbyn continue to run the country for now while we sort ourselves out".
    Absolutely ;)
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,345
    rkrkrk said:

    Barnesian said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Barnesian said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Barnesian said:

    If the present Government is so weak that it cannot get key legislation on Brexit through Parliament yet Tory MPs will not allow a General Election, then we may be headed for a one or two year National Government to manage Brexit in the national interest.

    Step forward Vince Cable.

    I wouldn’t bet on it at 500/1.
    i would at 500/1! It's unlikely but there is a scenario.
    What time horizon? One year?
    Next PM
    You can currently lay at 980/1 on betfair.
    You could always offer a couple of quid - you might get a taker!
    I've put a fiver up for 500/1.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,405
    AlsoIndigo said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alternatively, we could tell the EU to "f*ck themselves", and find ourselves crashing out of existing trade agreements with the EU and third countries. This would cause numerous problems, and a likely precipitous collapse in gross capital formation, which would flow through into a serious recession. Said serious recession would then result in a Corbyn election, which would have the same impact that Tsipras had in Greece.

    Or the EU continues with its current salami tactics. 60bn or crash out, if we agree they bank that, then, ECJ oversight or crash out, then, hand over your reproductive organs or crash out, until such times as the public gets sufficiently pissed off that it wont countenance any sort of deal, and all the above happens anyway.

    The EU woefully misjudged the desire of the British public to leave, they are going to similarly woefully misjudge the tolerance of the British public for being blackmailed.

    George W Bush put it best: we judge others by their worst examples, and ourselves by our best intentions.

    It's easy to see the EU as blackmailing us. Give us $xxxxx (add some more xxxxs as appropriate) or we'll cut you off.

    Step back for a second.

    Do you honestly believe that pretty much every EU politician's sole concern is screwing as much out of the UK as possible?

    Or do you think they - perhaps misguidedly - think that we made a commitment regarding expenditures and have reneged?

    As it happens, I think almost all the money issues can be fudged. (The contingent liabilities around Irish default being perhaps the easiest: we'll simply take our share of the bailout onto our books.)

    This isn't Star Wars. There isn't an evil empire and some plucky rebels. There are some people with one set of interests, and another with a different set of interests. They are fighting/arguing/discussing over future relationships, and (yes) there is too much of a desire to see this as zero sum.

    As an aside, your 'salami tactics' jibe is absurd. The FT published the EU's views on what it was owed more than four months ago. Nothing, as far as I'm aware, has changed.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,152
    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    He’s not right that Brexit could lead to a large boost to the UK economy.

    ...

    https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21727078-patrick-minford-thinks-gdp-could-increase-68-most-economists-say-brexit-will-hurt

    https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/uktpo/2017/04/19/will-eliminating-uk-tariffs-boost-uk-gdp-by-4-percent/

    In all likelihood, the UK will do a greater proportion of its trade with the EU post Brexit than they do now.

    Let me repeat this, because it's so surprising, the UK will likely do a greater proportion of its trade with the EU post Brexit than now.

    Why? Because when we leave the Customs Union, we lose the EU's existing trade deals (Canada, Mexico, South Korea, Israel, South Africa, etc.). We also lose the treaties covering mutual recognition of standards (the US, Japan).

    Now, these will all (in all likelihood) be replicated fairly quickly, although with Dr Fox at the DfIT nothing is certain. For a period, though, we will have the least unchanged terms of trade with the EU. For that reason, the proportion of trade that goes to the EU is likely to rise, at least in the near term.
    How does that help?
    Hardly seems to support your assertion of a large boost to the UK economy.
    The UK could have a boost from Brexit. It could take a big hit.

    Brexit is not a single thing, and is merely one of the various choices that our country has to make.

    We could, for example, choose to "pay up", and write a large cheque to the EU in return for similar levels of access to now, and a sensible extended transition period (during which we replicated the existing agreements the EU has). We could also use the opportunity to deregulate our economy further. While it would make our farmers upset, we could lower the price of food by removing tariffs from the import of various commodities.

    I think that would be a boost to the UK economy.

    Alternatively, we could tell the EU to "f*ck themselves", and find ourselves crashing out of existing trade agreements with the EU and third countries. This would cause numerous problems, and a likely precipitous collapse in gross capital formation, which would flow through into a serious recession. Said serious recession would then result in a Corbyn election, which would have the same impact that Tsipras had in Greece.

    I reckon that would be pretty disastrous for the UK economy.

    We'll, it's a theory. But isn't your second scenario precisely the Minford thesis of how we might prosper ?
    The likelihood of the first scenario coming about seems very unlikely indeed... both the terms of the agreement and the 'further deregulation'.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,405
    AlsoIndigo said:

    rkrkrk said:

    But what are these deregulations that are going to boost our economy? Why haven't they been done already? Will they jeopardise the transition period with the EU or our future trading relationship with them?

    At the moment we have to apply EU standards to all our products whether for sale to the EU, for internal consumption, or for sale to third countries. If we sell to say Brazil, we have to use both EU and Brazilian standards, non-EU producers are selling to Brazilian standards only, which if more lax than EU standards gives them a considerable advantage.

    That's not actually true: it;s perfectly legal for a UK (or French) company to locally build a product specifically for export to the Brazilian (or US or wherever) market that does not meet EU standards.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Lovely blog from Kevin Hague:

    https://chokkablog.blogspot.co.id/2017/11/where-are-you-from.html
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    rcs1000 said:

    As an aside, your 'salami tactics' jibe is absurd. The FT published the EU's views on what it was owed more than four months ago. Nothing, as far as I'm aware, has changed.

    Did you read Mr Chope's article ?

    http://brexitcentral.com/meeting-michel-barnier-guy-verhofstadt-ive-concluded-no-deal-will-better-deal/

    It would seem the cash is the least of the problems, residency for relatives of EU nationals currently resident, ECJ oversight, conditions required to be attached to future trade agreements between the UK and third countries. Inability to enter into trade agreements until after the transitional period (which is a funny sort of transition) etc


  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    CarlottaVance said:

    Lovely blog from Kevin Hague:

    https://chokkablog.blogspot.co.id/2017/11/where-are-you-from.html

    Very nice short read - thanks for sharing.
  • AlsoIndigoAlsoIndigo Posts: 1,852
    rcs1000 said:

    AlsoIndigo said:

    rkrkrk said:

    But what are these deregulations that are going to boost our economy? Why haven't they been done already? Will they jeopardise the transition period with the EU or our future trading relationship with them?

    At the moment we have to apply EU standards to all our products whether for sale to the EU, for internal consumption, or for sale to third countries. If we sell to say Brazil, we have to use both EU and Brazilian standards, non-EU producers are selling to Brazilian standards only, which if more lax than EU standards gives them a considerable advantage.

    That's not actually true: it;s perfectly legal for a UK (or French) company to locally build a product specifically for export to the Brazilian (or US or wherever) market that does not meet EU standards.
    Is it not the case the manufacturers of specified product types are required to do so in compliance with the CE Mark scheme for example ?
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    rkrkrk said:



    I think that has proved that the opposition will vote for an election in almost all circumstances.

    The only exception I think could be if there were major disputes about the voting system/constituency boundaries/something like that to justify holding off.

    I'm sure that's right, and I think it would be hard for the SNP to do anything else too - "We're propping up the Tories though we know they're a shambles" would not be popular in Scotland.

    An election would happen in either of 3 scenarios:

    1. Lack of perceived legitimacy. For all the criticism, May did actually come out ahead in a GE. A.N. Other will be someone who most people have barely heard of, suddenly running their away in the middle of tumultuous decisions. Will they feel able to keep it up for 4 years?

    2. Splits. On current form a leadership election would be very divisive, on the hard vs soft Brexit line (plus any personal issues). Are we sure that a dozen or so Tory MPs, perhaps with safe seats, might not feel unable to back the winner?

    3. Hubris. The new leader might see a good poll (normal for any new leader) and think "I'm going to go for it while it lasts, I'm gonna win."

    Number 2 is fairly unlikely, a combination of 1 and 3 maybe less so.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,789
    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    Lovely blog from Kevin Hague:

    https://chokkablog.blogspot.co.id/2017/11/where-are-you-from.html

    Very nice short read - thanks for sharing.
    +1
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    rcs1000 said:

    AlsoIndigo said:

    rkrkrk said:

    But what are these deregulations that are going to boost our economy? Why haven't they been done already? Will they jeopardise the transition period with the EU or our future trading relationship with them?

    At the moment we have to apply EU standards to all our products whether for sale to the EU, for internal consumption, or for sale to third countries. If we sell to say Brazil, we have to use both EU and Brazilian standards, non-EU producers are selling to Brazilian standards only, which if more lax than EU standards gives them a considerable advantage.

    That's not actually true: it;s perfectly legal for a UK (or French) company to locally build a product specifically for export to the Brazilian (or US or wherever) market that does not meet EU standards.
    By amazing coincidence I will be helping a UK company do exactly that later today. It involves buying stuff from Germany. The whole 'free to trade anywhere when we are out of the EU' thing was the biggest red herring of the referendum campaign. Another was the one that the rarely right about anything Danial Hannan put about. He came up with a statistic that 96% of UK companies don't trade with the EU. I am not sure how such data could even be generated, but I am sure it is highly misleading. My modest invoice for my efforts today will be a totally UK affair between two UK based companies, but it is totally dependent on international trade and regulations to happen.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,466
    Does all of this come down to the unity and discipline of the Conservative Party MPs....the conventional thinking is that Turkey's don't vote for Xmas...but BREXIT is sort of Christmas (in an ironic sort of way) , does a Hard or Crash-out BREXIT deal mean a split in the Tories is more likely. I cant see Anna Soubry voting for an election given the majority she is defending and she is not alone. FTPA has had consequences we are only just realising.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    Recidivist said:

    rcs1000 said:

    AlsoIndigo said:

    rkrkrk said:

    But what are these deregulations that are going to boost our economy? Why haven't they been done already? Will they jeopardise the transition period with the EU or our future trading relationship with them?

    At the moment we have to apply EU standards to all our products whether for sale to the EU, for internal consumption, or for sale to third countries. If we sell to say Brazil, we have to use both EU and Brazilian standards, non-EU producers are selling to Brazilian standards only, which if more lax than EU standards gives them a considerable advantage.

    That's not actually true: it;s perfectly legal for a UK (or French) company to locally build a product specifically for export to the Brazilian (or US or wherever) market that does not meet EU standards.
    He came up with a statistic that 96% of UK companies don't trade with the EU. I am not sure how such data could even be generated, but I am sure it is highly misleading.
    He may be “technically” correct since ~80% of UK “trade” is internal and many small businesses won’t directly trade with the EU - but of our export trade the EU is and will remain a significant albeit declining source of trade. So if it comes to “people filling in forms” he has a point - but I suspect he was trying to make a broader more misleading impression.....
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Reading through the header, there is much to agree on, in normal, or what would could be considered some sort of normal times. But I would argue that it regards the world through PB glasses or inside the political bubble.

    The first point is quite simple, there is no one untainted by the present incompetence within the Tory government, who would be considered by the electorate would find acceptable to be PM. (And Ruthie is not even an MP, and even if she was, she has even less Ministerial (or Westminster) experience than Corbyn and would destroy any argument for promoting her).

    Again, these are not normal times, the Tories have ham strung the country with Brexit and the timescale of March 2019 to complete negotiations. To have another internal election is going to waste another 3 months, plus another couple while the new PM and cabinet find their feet under their respective new desks. This is not acceptable under any circumstances by businesses, industry, financial services, agricultural and environmental sectors, while the media will have a field day. The pressure on Parliament to have a new GE will be overwhelming.

    The last point, amongst many still available to me, is that the present administration is too weak to be allowed to continue. Just listening to Radio 4's reports of today's front pages, indicates only too clearly that the media pressure has started, even from those sources traditionally thought of as Tory supporters. The MP's will soon be going back to their constituencies for the Christmas break, and in the nights out and parties, they are going to have their ears bent......
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    OchEye said:

    The MP's will soon be going back to their constituencies for the Christmas break, and in the nights out and parties, they are going to have their ears bent......

    A lot of it along the lines of Stop faffing around and get on with Brexit......
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    OchEye said:

    Reading through the header, there is much to agree on, in normal, or what would could be considered some sort of normal times. But I would argue that it regards the world through PB glasses or inside the political bubble.

    The first point is quite simple, there is no one untainted by the present incompetence within the Tory government, who would be considered by the electorate would find acceptable to be PM. (And Ruthie is not even an MP, and even if she was, she has even less Ministerial (or Westminster) experience than Corbyn and would destroy any argument for promoting her).

    Again, these are not normal times, the Tories have ham strung the country with Brexit and the timescale of March 2019 to complete negotiations. To have another internal election is going to waste another 3 months, plus another couple while the new PM and cabinet find their feet under their respective new desks. This is not acceptable under any circumstances by businesses, industry, financial services, agricultural and environmental sectors, while the media will have a field day. The pressure on Parliament to have a new GE will be overwhelming.

    The last point, amongst many still available to me, is that the present administration is too weak to be allowed to continue. Just listening to Radio 4's reports of today's front pages, indicates only too clearly that the media pressure has started, even from those sources traditionally thought of as Tory supporters. The MP's will soon be going back to their constituencies for the Christmas break, and in the nights out and parties, they are going to have their ears bent......

    While a Tory leadership contest takes months, the current zombie shuffling is not exactly making good use of residual negotiating time.

    Perhaps the worst outcome would be to replace one zombie with another.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    CarlottaVance said:

    OchEye said:

    The MP's will soon be going back to their constituencies for the Christmas break, and in the nights out and parties, they are going to have their ears bent......

    A lot of it along the lines of Stop faffing around and get on with Brexit......
    That's the problem with having told people for months that Brexit means Brexit when it doesn't.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The Conservatives need to get past the next couple of weeks to establish whether Britain has enough time to negotiate a deal with the EU. If it does, they may as well leave Theresa May in place to finish the job. If it doesn't, they might as well replace her asap.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,992
    OGH discards the wild card - events, dear boy. And we have a lot of events at the moment.

    Assume that another 8 Tory MPs enter adulthood and write their letters. The 22 declares a leadership contest, and within 24 hours it's abundantly clear that May doesn't have the support. At which point a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government is presented to the house. We either have the spectacle of MPs saying on alternative days that they have no confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party then saying they have confidence in the Prime Minister.

    Or the government loses the vote. For all that "because DUP" is used as the Tories firewall on here, they haven't had a penny yet, and Forster and her party have shown considerable political flexibility over the years as they see fit - they won't work with Corbyn apparently for 'supporting the IRA but were happy to work with the actual IRA and let a former brigade commander run schools...

    So there is a clear scenario where in the midst of a leadership challenge the government loses a confidence vote. The FTPA then gives the Commons 14 days to pass a confidence vote in a government or an election is called. That could be fun...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,381
    The lack of a sense of grip is palpable and enervating. How might this change? Well, if the EU agreed to move on to future trade next month it might seem like the government is getting somewhere. Of course the reverse is also true.

    What this simple example shows is that this government is totally vulnerable to events that are not within its control. If there is a panic next month when the EU solemnly declares that the UK has not offered enough cash (never mind what for) there is a real risk of the Tories splitting between the sod you's and the deal at any pricers. I would not overprice the Christmas/turkey interface in such a scenario.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,772
    RochdalePioneers said:

    OGH discards the wild card - events, dear boy. And we have a lot of events at the moment.

    Assume that another 8 Tory MPs enter adulthood and write their letters. The 22 declares a leadership contest, and within 24 hours it's abundantly clear that May doesn't have the support. At which point a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government is presented to the house. We either have the spectacle of MPs saying on alternative days that they have no confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party then saying they have confidence in the Prime Minister.

    Or the government loses the vote. For all that "because DUP" is used as the Tories firewall on here, they haven't had a penny yet, and Forster and her party have shown considerable political flexibility over the years as they see fit - they won't work with Corbyn apparently for 'supporting the IRA but were happy to work with the actual IRA and let a former brigade commander run schools...

    So there is a clear scenario where in the midst of a leadership challenge the government loses a confidence vote. The FTPA then gives the Commons 14 days to pass a confidence vote in a government or an election is called. That could be fun...

    Nah.

    Happened in 1990 as well.

    We had Tory MPs voting against Thatcher one day and backing the Government in a no confidence vote a couple of days later.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,772
    edited November 2017
    Damian Green is toast I think now.

    Damian Green appeared to drop his claim that there was never any porn on his seized computers yesterday and instead reiterated that police had never told him about the discovery.

    Mr Green, the first secretary of state, said a week ago that allegations that there was pornography on a computer seized from his office nine years ago were false and completely untrue.

    However, since Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner between 2009 and 2011, revealed at the weekend that he had also been told about the claims, Mr Green has not repeated his original denial.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-chief-knew-of-porn-claim-against-damian-green-l79hxw69b
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,992
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    OGH discards the wild card - events, dear boy. And we have a lot of events at the moment.

    Assume that another 8 Tory MPs enter adulthood and write their letters. The 22 declares a leadership contest, and within 24 hours it's abundantly clear that May doesn't have the support. At which point a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government is presented to the house. We either have the spectacle of MPs saying on alternative days that they have no confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party then saying they have confidence in the Prime Minister.

    Or the government loses the vote. For all that "because DUP" is used as the Tories firewall on here, they haven't had a penny yet, and Forster and her party have shown considerable political flexibility over the years as they see fit - they won't work with Corbyn apparently for 'supporting the IRA but were happy to work with the actual IRA and let a former brigade commander run schools...

    So there is a clear scenario where in the midst of a leadership challenge the government loses a confidence vote. The FTPA then gives the Commons 14 days to pass a confidence vote in a government or an election is called. That could be fun...

    Nah.

    Happened in 1990 as well.

    We had Tory MPs voting against Thatcher one day and backing the Government in a no confidence vote a couple of days later.
    Thatcher had a majority. May does not. And the Tory MPs seem a wee bit more divided now than they did in 1990. Back then it was personal to the PM with thoughts towards their own survival as MPs. Now it's for the country, with ideology and nationalism driving works like saboteurs and traitors towards their opponents
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Damian Green is toast I think now.

    Damian Green appeared to drop his claim that there was never any porn on his seized computers yesterday and instead reiterated that police had never told him about the discovery.

    Mr Green, the first secretary of state, said a week ago that allegations that there was pornography on a computer seized from his office nine years ago were false and completely untrue.

    However, since Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner between 2009 and 2011, revealed at the weekend that he had also been told about the claims, Mr Green has not repeated his original denial.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-chief-knew-of-porn-claim-against-damian-green-l79hxw69b

    Sir Paul told the BBC: “I regret it’s in the public domain. There was no criminality involved, there were no victims, there was no vulnerability and it was not a matter of extraordinary public interest.”

    It is understood that it was then regarded as a workplace matter. Sources close to Sir Paul said that he continued to regret that the matter had been made public.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/929971706722181120?s=17
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Damian Green is toast I think now.

    Damian Green appeared to drop his claim that there was never any porn on his seized computers yesterday and instead reiterated that police had never told him about the discovery.

    Mr Green, the first secretary of state, said a week ago that allegations that there was pornography on a computer seized from his office nine years ago were false and completely untrue.

    However, since Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner between 2009 and 2011, revealed at the weekend that he had also been told about the claims, Mr Green has not repeated his original denial.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-chief-knew-of-porn-claim-against-damian-green-l79hxw69b

    Sir Paul told the BBC: “I regret it’s in the public domain. There was no criminality involved, there were no victims, there was no vulnerability and it was not a matter of extraordinary public interest.”

    It is understood that it was then regarded as a workplace matter. Sources close to Sir Paul said that he continued to regret that the matter had been made public.
    Lying about it may be more damaging than the original revelations.
    But I think TSE is wrong to say Green is toast.

    The Gavin to Defence appointment suggests May strongly feels she needs allies in Cabinet - you'd think then she would be loath to lose Green over something relatively minor like this.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,381
    This thread is now approximately 4 hours old. In that time the EU has, on average sold us £2.7m more than we have sold them (£5bn a month/31/24).

    Or to put it another way the entire annual GDP per head of 77 Britons has been spent to keep citizens of the EU in their jobs. I am sure the thank you cards are in the post as they go to work this Monday morning, work that might not exist if it was not for their right to trade freely with the UK.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,381
    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Damian Green is toast I think now.

    Damian Green appeared to drop his claim that there was never any porn on his seized computers yesterday and instead reiterated that police had never told him about the discovery.

    Mr Green, the first secretary of state, said a week ago that allegations that there was pornography on a computer seized from his office nine years ago were false and completely untrue.

    However, since Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner between 2009 and 2011, revealed at the weekend that he had also been told about the claims, Mr Green has not repeated his original denial.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-chief-knew-of-porn-claim-against-damian-green-l79hxw69b

    Sir Paul told the BBC: “I regret it’s in the public domain. There was no criminality involved, there were no victims, there was no vulnerability and it was not a matter of extraordinary public interest.”

    It is understood that it was then regarded as a workplace matter. Sources close to Sir Paul said that he continued to regret that the matter had been made public.
    Lying about it may be more damaging than the original revelations.
    But I think TSE is wrong to say Green is toast.

    The Gavin to Defence appointment suggests May strongly feels she needs allies in Cabinet - you'd think then she would be loath to lose Green over something relatively minor like this.
    Are you assuming that there is only 1 person with access to that computer?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Damian Green is toast I think now.

    Damian Green appeared to drop his claim that there was never any porn on his seized computers yesterday and instead reiterated that police had never told him about the discovery.

    Mr Green, the first secretary of state, said a week ago that allegations that there was pornography on a computer seized from his office nine years ago were false and completely untrue.

    However, since Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner between 2009 and 2011, revealed at the weekend that he had also been told about the claims, Mr Green has not repeated his original denial.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-chief-knew-of-porn-claim-against-damian-green-l79hxw69b

    Sir Paul told the BBC: “I regret it’s in the public domain. There was no criminality involved, there were no victims, there was no vulnerability and it was not a matter of extraordinary public interest.”

    It is understood that it was then regarded as a workplace matter. Sources close to Sir Paul said that he continued to regret that the matter had been made public.
    Lying about it may be more damaging than the original revelations.
    But I think TSE is wrong to say Green is toast.

    The Gavin to Defence appointment suggests May strongly feels she needs allies in Cabinet - you'd think then she would be loath to lose Green over something relatively minor like this.
    It hasn’t been established that Green “lied”. Quick claimed porn had been on “Green’s” computer. It was an “office” computer and the police say it’s impossible to tell who accessed it. If they didn’t tell Green about it, how is he supposed to know about it?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: I was a bit miffed to have narrowly missed out on my tip and for another to come off, but now I'm bloody annoyed. Betfair have decided my winning bet on Hamilton not to get on the podium is void. The odds were 2.4 and he started from the pit lane, finishing 4th. I'm less than bloody happy.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Damian Green is toast I think now.

    Damian Green appeared to drop his claim that there was never any porn on his seized computers yesterday and instead reiterated that police had never told him about the discovery.

    Mr Green, the first secretary of state, said a week ago that allegations that there was pornography on a computer seized from his office nine years ago were false and completely untrue.

    However, since Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner between 2009 and 2011, revealed at the weekend that he had also been told about the claims, Mr Green has not repeated his original denial.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-chief-knew-of-porn-claim-against-damian-green-l79hxw69b

    In a public sector office , you would be toast for having porn on your own work computer accessed and logged in by yourself.However this is not a normal public sector workplace.Hard to understand why Damian Green was so adamant there was no such material on there.Surely he should have said not to his knowledge.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    CarlottaVance said:

    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Damian Green is toast I think now.

    Damian Green appeared to drop his claim that there was never any porn on his seized computers yesterday and instead reiterated that police had never told him about the discovery.

    Mr Green, the first secretary of state, said a week ago that allegations that there was pornography on a computer seized from his office nine years ago were false and completely untrue.

    However, since Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner between 2009 and 2011, revealed at the weekend that he had also been told about the claims, Mr Green has not repeated his original denial.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-chief-knew-of-porn-claim-against-damian-green-l79hxw69b

    Sir Paul told the BBC: “I regret it’s in the public domain. There was no criminality involved, there were no victims, there was no vulnerability and it was not a matter of extraordinary public interest.”

    It is understood that it was then regarded as a workplace matter. Sources close to Sir Paul said that he continued to regret that the matter had been made public.
    Lying about it may be more damaging than the original revelations.
    But I think TSE is wrong to say Green is toast.

    The Gavin to Defence appointment suggests May strongly feels she needs allies in Cabinet - you'd think then she would be loath to lose Green over something relatively minor like this.
    It hasn’t been established that Green “lied”. Quick claimed porn had been on “Green’s” computer. It was an “office” computer and the police say it’s impossible to tell who accessed it. If they didn’t tell Green about it, how is he supposed to know about it?
    You're right.
    But it's foolish to deny something you don't know to be false.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    DavidL said:

    This thread is now approximately 4 hours old. In that time the EU has, on average sold us £2.7m more than we have sold them (£5bn a month/31/24).

    Or to put it another way the entire annual GDP per head of 77 Britons has been spent to keep citizens of the EU in their jobs. I am sure the thank you cards are in the post as they go to work this Monday morning, work that might not exist if it was not for their right to trade freely with the UK.

    The UK workforce is made up entirely of Britons? Why didn't anyone tell us this before?
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    CarlottaVance said:

    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Damian Green is toast I think now.

    Damian Green appeared to drop his claim that there was never any porn on his seized computers yesterday and instead reiterated that police had never told him about the discovery.

    Mr Green, the first secretary of state, said a week ago that allegations that there was pornography on a computer seized from his office nine years ago were false and completely untrue.

    However, since Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner between 2009 and 2011, revealed at the weekend that he had also been told about the claims, Mr Green has not repeated his original denial.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-chief-knew-of-porn-claim-against-damian-green-l79hxw69b

    Sir Paul told the BBC: “I regret it’s in the public domain. There was no criminality involved, there were no victims, there was no vulnerability and it was not a matter of extraordinary public interest.”

    It is understood that it was then regarded as a workplace matter. Sources close to Sir Paul said that he continued to regret that the matter had been made public.
    Lying about it may be more damaging than the original revelations.
    But I think TSE is wrong to say Green is toast.

    The Gavin to Defence appointment suggests May strongly feels she needs allies in Cabinet - you'd think then she would be loath to lose Green over something relatively minor like this.
    It hasn’t been established that Green “lied”. Quick claimed porn had been on “Green’s” computer. It was an “office” computer and the police say it’s impossible to tell who accessed it. If they didn’t tell Green about it, how is he supposed to know about it?
    I did not know they had no personal log in requirements to their office computers.Was that the situation back then ? Seems very lackadaisical if so.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    rkrkrk said:

    CarlottaVance said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Damian Green is toast I think now.

    Damian Green appeared to drop his claim that there was never any porn on his seized computers yesterday and instead reiterated that police had never told him about the discovery.

    Mr Green, the first secretary of state, said a week ago that allegations that there was pornography on a computer seized from his office nine years ago were false and completely untrue.

    However, since Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police commissioner between 2009 and 2011, revealed at the weekend that he had also been told about the claims, Mr Green has not repeated his original denial.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/met-chief-knew-of-porn-claim-against-damian-green-l79hxw69b

    Sir Paul told the BBC: “I regret it’s in the public domain. There was no criminality involved, there were no victims, there was no vulnerability and it was not a matter of extraordinary public interest.”

    It is understood that it was then regarded as a workplace matter. Sources close to Sir Paul said that he continued to regret that the matter had been made public.
    Lying about it may be more damaging than the original revelations.
    But I think TSE is wrong to say Green is toast.

    The Gavin to Defence appointment suggests May strongly feels she needs allies in Cabinet - you'd think then she would be loath to lose Green over something relatively minor like this.
    It hasn’t been established that Green “lied”. Quick claimed porn had been on “Green’s” computer. It was an “office” computer and the police say it’s impossible to tell who accessed it. If they didn’t tell Green about it, how is he supposed to know about it?
    You're right.
    But it's foolish to deny something you don't know to be false.
    What Green actually said:

    "More importantly, the police have never suggested to me that improper material was found on my parliamentary computer, nor did I have a 'private' computer, as has been claimed.

    "The allegations about the material and computer, now nine years old, are false, disreputable political smears from a discredited police officer acting in flagrant breach of his duty to keep the details of police investigations confidential, and amount to little more than an unscrupulous character assassination."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/damian-green-porn-computer-pc-allegations-sexual-harassment-cabinet-office-amber-rudd-theresa-may-a8038891.html
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    On topic


    Surely it depends on who the new leader is and how well they get on.

    For example, will the DUP and JRM hit it off?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,152
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    F1: I was a bit miffed to have narrowly missed out on my tip and for another to come off, but now I'm bloody annoyed. Betfair have decided my winning bet on Hamilton not to get on the podium is void. The odds were 2.4 and he started from the pit lane, finishing 4th. I'm less than bloody happy.

    What rationale do they have for that, Mr.D ?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    The accusation against Green seems too trivial to be a resigning issue.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    edited November 2017
    Mr. B, I don't know. It was voided just after 3pm, six hours after I made the bet. Brilliantly, the contact us route is taking a long time and occasionally timing out so I haven't been able to reach them yet.

    Edited extra bit: still can't get through. Will try again later. *sighs* Seems most 50/50 shots are going ill this year. Congrats on the Vettel lead lap 1 bet, incidentally. Ricciardo came very close to being out but, of course, it didn't happen.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    What is "porn" in this context anyway? It could mean anything, included something on an email server or something accessed by accident.

    If one casts their minds back to the poisonous atmosphere between the Conservatives and certain officers in the Met at the time it wouldn't be totally surprising if the police in charge of the investigation wanted to use some highly debateable and minor discovery to try to undermine Green in the public eye. And it wouldn't be surprising if some of them still bore a grudge and the latest 'revelations' can be seen in that context.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    CarlottaVance said:



    What Green actually said:

    "More importantly, the police have never suggested to me that improper material was found on my parliamentary computer, nor did I have a 'private' computer, as has been claimed.

    "The allegations about the material and computer, now nine years old, are false, disreputable political smears from a discredited police officer acting in flagrant breach of his duty to keep the details of police investigations confidential, and amount to little more than an unscrupulous character assassination."

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/damian-green-porn-computer-pc-allegations-sexual-harassment-cabinet-office-amber-rudd-theresa-may-a8038891.html

    The article also says the allegations are categorically untrue.
    But if there is porn on the computer (and I think we now can be fairly sure that there was) then the allegations are obviously not categorically untrue or false.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,772
    Sean_F said:

    The accusation against Green seems too trivial to be a resigning issue.

    The accusation is irrelevant, the question is did he mislead either the PM or the inquiry.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    On topic, it isn't exactly implausible to think that certain Conservatives becoming leader could cause several Tory MPs to quit removing the Con-DUP majority.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,466
    unless Damian Green really trips up, he must be safe. I have a question that ties in with the theme above.....what is happening with the Parliamentary boundaries that were under review - is it now consigned to the scrap heap?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,799
    alex. said:

    On topic, it isn't exactly implausible to think that certain Conservatives becoming leader could cause several Tory MPs to quit removing the Con-DUP majority.

    I think a few are on record as saying JRM would cause them to leave the party.
    But would it cause them to bring down a Conservative govt/vote for a general election?
    And would they really follow through?

    Not sure...
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    The accusation against Green seems too trivial to be a resigning issue.

    The accusation is irrelevant, the question is did he mislead either the PM or the inquiry.
    I don't think Sir Paul Stephenson's comments amount to a smoking gun. He's not saying that he saw porn on the computer.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    rkrkrk said:

    alex. said:

    On topic, it isn't exactly implausible to think that certain Conservatives becoming leader could cause several Tory MPs to quit removing the Con-DUP majority.

    I think a few are on record as saying JRM would cause them to leave the party.
    But would it cause them to bring down a Conservative govt/vote for a general election?
    And would they really follow through?

    Not sure...
    If they quit as MPs they wouldn't need to make the choice.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 4,658
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    The accusation against Green seems too trivial to be a resigning issue.

    The accusation is irrelevant, the question is did he mislead either the PM or the inquiry.
    Well you don't know if he did, do you?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,152
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. B, I don't know. It was voided just after 3pm, six hours after I made the bet. Brilliantly, the contact us route is taking a long time and occasionally timing out so I haven't been able to reach them yet.

    Edited extra bit: still can't get through. Will try again later. *sighs* Seems most 50/50 shots are going ill this year. Congrats on the Vettel lead lap 1 bet, incidentally. Ricciardo came very close to being out but, of course, it didn't happen.

    I'm grateful you pointed that one out for me; profitable weekend.
    I'm always a little disturbed by these seemingly random bets voided...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sean_F said:

    The accusation against Green seems too trivial to be a resigning issue.

    The accusation is irrelevant, the question is did he mislead either the PM or the inquiry.
    The original claim:

    “Damian Green had porn on his personal work computer”

    What appears to be established:

    Bob Quick was told that one of the computers taken from Damien Green’s Office had legal porn on it, downloaded by person or persons unknown. The police decided it was a non criminal matter and did not inform Green.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @janemerrick23: Richard Ratcliffe says he thinks Gove’s remarks on his wife were political, as a way of defending the Foreign Secretary #r4today

    The cartoon in The Times today is brutal
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    edited November 2017
    Jonathan said:

    On topic


    Surely it depends on who the new leader is and how well they get on.

    For example, will the DUP and JRM hit it off?

    I'd have thought that the DUP would love JRM. His views are pretty similar to theirs on most things, it seems, except as they relate to the body of Christ during mass.

    I saw him the other day being interviewed. He is very good at answering questions and in critiquing what the "other side" has to say. Where I think he might fall down heavily is in expressing his own views. He is an uncompromising right winger and would struggle to hide that or wrap it up in the kind of language that would not scare away a lot of voters.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited November 2017
    I think in the event of May going a leadership election would be held, with MPs likely putting Davis and Rudd to the membership, a contest which Davis would likely win. He would then offer little ideological change from May and little change on the Brexit position either and be able to navigate through at least until Brexit is over without calling a general election
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    edited November 2017
    Mr. B, well, I;m glad *someone* made some money :p

    Amusingly, Mr. M's been busy but left a comment saying he just backed all the things I shortlisted. On a £10 basis for each that means he's up about £47.5, which is rather better than my weekend...
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    DavidL said:

    This thread is now approximately 4 hours old. In that time the EU has, on average sold us £2.7m more than we have sold them (£5bn a month/31/24).

    Or to put it another way the entire annual GDP per head of 77 Britons has been spent to keep citizens of the EU in their jobs. I am sure the thank you cards are in the post as they go to work this Monday morning, work that might not exist if it was not for their right to trade freely with the UK.

    "German car manufacturers will demand that Merkel agree a deal with the UK", "They will be desperate for a deal", "They need us more than we need them" ... repeat to fade.

    In other news, the EU is a single market, but it is not a single country.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/929984362359218176
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,823
    RochdalePioneers said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    RochdalePioneers said:

    OGH discards the wild card - events, dear boy. And we have a lot of events at the moment.

    Assume that another 8 Tory MPs enter adulthood and write their letters. The 22 declares a leadership contest, and within 24 hours it's abundantly clear that May doesn't have the support. At which point a motion of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government is presented to the house. We either have the spectacle of MPs saying on alternative days that they have no confidence in the leader of the Conservative Party then saying they have confidence in the Prime Minister.

    Or the government loses the vote. For all that "because DUP" is used as the Tories firewall on here, they haven't had a penny yet, and Forster and her party have shown considerable political flexibility over the years as they see fit - they won't work with Corbyn apparently for 'supporting the IRA but were happy to work with the actual IRA and let a former brigade commander run schools...

    So there is a clear scenario where in the midst of a leadership challenge the government loses a confidence vote. The FTPA then gives the Commons 14 days to pass a confidence vote in a government or an election is called. That could be fun...

    Nah.

    Happened in 1990 as well.

    We had Tory MPs voting against Thatcher one day and backing the Government in a no confidence vote a couple of days later.
    Thatcher had a majority. May does not. And the Tory MPs seem a wee bit more divided now than they did in 1990. Back then it was personal to the PM with thoughts towards their own survival as MPs. Now it's for the country, with ideology and nationalism driving works like saboteurs and traitors towards their opponents
    That is the key difference. If you genuinely believe that proceeding further down the current course will be immensely damaging for the country, it is not unreasonable to be considering what alternative paths you might be willing to support, both from principle and self interest.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,823
    DavidL said:

    This thread is now approximately 4 hours old. In that time the EU has, on average sold us £2.7m more than we have sold them (£5bn a month/31/24).

    Or to put it another way the entire annual GDP per head of 77 Britons has been spent to keep citizens of the EU in their jobs. I am sure the thank you cards are in the post as they go to work this Monday morning, work that might not exist if it was not for their right to trade freely with the UK.

    Many economists will tell you that trade benefits the buyer, who has something s/he would otherwise not have access to at that price. The seller can always find another customer.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,823
    swing_voter said:

    unless Damian Green really trips up, he must be safe. I have a question that ties in with the theme above.....what is happening with the Parliamentary boundaries that were under review - is it now consigned to the scrap heap?

    Most people I speak to share a scepticism that the boundaries will ever happen. But they either need to be rejected when the proposal to proceed comes before the house next year, or, more likely (and as last time) a proposal to defer needs to be initiated from somewhere - last time AIR the process was initiated by an HOL committee.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 64,196
    DavidL said:

    This thread is now approximately 4 hours old. In that time the EU has, on average sold us £2.7m more than we have sold them (£5bn a month/31/24).

    Or to put it another way the entire annual GDP per head of 77 Britons has been spent to keep citizens of the EU in their jobs. I am sure the thank you cards are in the post as they go to work this Monday morning, work that might not exist if it was not for their right to trade freely with the UK.

    Optics are important but screwing a deal for the seek of £5bn extra in exit payments seems silly given what it cost the EU economy if there's no deal.

    The UK need them to drop from £50bn to just below £40bn, and the Uk can they say they wouldn't have got that drop without May being stubborn. The EU can then say we got the UK up from £18bn to £38bn, and the UK is paying big time.

    Everyone wins.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    SouthamObserver said:

    DavidL said:

    This thread is now approximately 4 hours old. In that time the EU has, on average sold us £2.7m more than we have sold them (£5bn a month/31/24).

    Or to put it another way the entire annual GDP per head of 77 Britons has been spent to keep citizens of the EU in their jobs. I am sure the thank you cards are in the post as they go to work this Monday morning, work that might not exist if it was not for their right to trade freely with the UK.

    "German car manufacturers will demand that Merkel agree a deal with the UK", "They will be desperate for a deal", "They need us more than we need them" ... repeat to fade.

    In other news, the EU is a single market, but it is not a single country.

    Thought you had gone all Steve Strange then for a minute .Fade to Grey.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    Lord Sugar says if he were May he would call a general election which would lead to Corbyn becoming PM and facing to deal with Brexit.

    The result would be such a disaster the Tories would be back in power in 5 years time
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/929986069545832449
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,422
    https://twitter.com/TelegraphNews/status/929989738265657351?s=17
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    If May does stand down and Green is not able to succeed her for whatever reason, who becomes acting PM?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,823
    On topic from today's Guardian: Kerr spelled out the legal reality on the Today programme that “at any stage we can change our minds if we want to”. But his point was not only that Brexit could be stopped altogether. He also, quite rightly, reminded listeners that under section 3 of the article he wrote, there is explicit provision for the European council to extend the standard two-year negotiating period.

    In other words: there is no intrinsic reason why a general election should not be held tomorrow, or at any other time. There is no jurisprudential barrier to a longer and more considered discussion of Britain’s future relationship with the EU.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,772
    SouthamObserver said:

    If May does stand down and Green is not able to succeed her for whatever reason, who becomes acting PM?

    Ken Clarke.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,258
    edited November 2017
    SouthamObserver said:

    If May does stand down and Green is not able to succeed her for whatever reason, who becomes acting PM?

    She would stay PM until a new one is elected, she would just step down as Tory leader until a new leader and hence a new PM, is elected
  • BudGBudG Posts: 711
    HYUFD said:

    Lord Sugar says if he were May he would call a general election which would lead to Corbyn becoming PM and facing to deal with Brexit.

    The result would be such a disaster the Tories would be back in power in 5 years time
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/929986069545832449

    She already tried that one 6 months ago and she didn't quite manage to do badly enough.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    HYUFD said:

    Lord Sugar says if he were May he would call a general election which would lead to Corbyn becoming PM and facing to deal with Brexit.

    The result would be such a disaster the Tories would be back in power in 5 years time
    https://mobile.twitter.com/Lord_Sugar/status/929986069545832449

    Too clever by half.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 40,054
    In news that will surprise no-one with half a brain, senior leaders of the Catalan separatist movement have been spending a great deal of time with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy.
    https://twitter.com/lugaricano/status/929848744752926726
  • Fat_SteveFat_Steve Posts: 361
    IanB2 said:

    DavidL said:

    This thread is now approximately 4 hours old. In that time the EU has, on average sold us £2.7m more than we have sold them (£5bn a month/31/24).

    Or to put it another way the entire annual GDP per head of 77 Britons has been spent to keep citizens of the EU in their jobs. I am sure the thank you cards are in the post as they go to work this Monday morning, work that might not exist if it was not for their right to trade freely with the UK.

    Many economists will tell you that trade benefits the buyer, who has something s/he would otherwise not have access to at that price. The seller can always find another customer.
    Always ? Is that as in always-in-every-case ?
    Working in manufacturing must be piss-easy then. I had no idea.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,894
    F1: post-race ramble:
    http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/brazil-post-race-analysis.html
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025