politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 16/1 tip to start off your Sunday morning
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 16/1 tip to start off your Sunday morning
Graphics: top one is from Paddy Power, the bottom one is from Ladbrokes
Comments
-
Good Morning Campers ....
0 -
16-1 is probably a bit too skinny. I'd want about 33-1 to be tempted.
0 -
Too much of a long shot. If there is an error my instinct is that it will be toward Boris, given that his supporters are vocal and online.0
-
Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.
What's to like?0 -
Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that.OldKingCole said:Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.
What's to like?
The rest not so much.
0 -
More reassuring words from a No-Dealer.Philip_Thompson said:
It won't devastate us. If some of those 44% of exports have to pay tariffs or deal with non-tariff barriers then so be it. Its a shame, but it isn't the end of the world.
Shouldn't we be aiming for something a bit higher than "It won't devastate us"?0 -
We do not currently trade with most of the rest of the world on WTO terms. We trade on terms negotiated by the EU. No Deal Brexit would nullify all those EU trade deals meaning we would suddenly jump to WTO (ie worse) on a lot more than the 44% of the export market being claimed.HYUFD said:
56% of our exports go outside the EU now as your figures confirm, it would be difficult but not devastating if we trade with the EU on WTO terms as we do with most of the rest of the world0 -
If it were a Jonestown Brexit (where the Brexiteers drink the Kool Aid and the rest of us are unaffected) I could get on board with it. In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself. Sadly, we are all going to be in the compound when it goes up in flames.0
-
The most interesting question is how long Boris will last after becoming PM (If indeed he wins)0
-
Why Guyana? What did it ever do to you?OnlyLivingBoy said:In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself.
0 -
It was the location of Jonestown. But I'm happy to go with anywhere far away from here, preferably malarial.ydoethur said:
Why Guyana? What did it ever do to you?OnlyLivingBoy said:In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself.
0 -
We're off to Cumbria for a family do at the end of the week. So I'd be grateful if any rain could be sorted by then!Cyclefree said:
Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that.OldKingCole said:Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.
What's to like?
The rest not so much.0 -
It rained very hard here yesterday. Nice and sunny now.OldKingCole said:
We're off to Cumbria for a family do at the end of the week. So I'd be grateful if any rain could be sorted by then!Cyclefree said:
Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that.OldKingCole said:Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.
What's to like?
The rest not so much.0 -
This doesn't appear to be one of TSE's better suggestions (and they are generally pretty good, regardless of his modest claims for them.)
There's a debate to come, isn't there? That's a major hazard. And I see no reason why he should exceed YouGov's estimate.
He'll win easilt enough, but 80% is a very high bar.0 -
A little rain here in Essex last night, just enough to dampen the grass, Now it's thick grey, November-is cloud. And my plan was to go to Chelmsford and watch Essex cricket.ydoethur said:
It rained very hard here yesterday. Nice and sunny now.OldKingCole said:
We're off to Cumbria for a family do at the end of the week. So I'd be grateful if any rain could be sorted by then!Cyclefree said:
Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that.OldKingCole said:Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.
What's to like?
The rest not so much.0 -
Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.
Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....0 -
He's clearly going to win, but I think any surprise will be on the downside of the winning margin. Even though I realise it's a bet, not a prediction, it looks too short.
It's interesting, though, to note how he's dominated the contest. What he's done is offer a series of minor gaffes - the bus-making hobby is a classic example - which journalsits have seized on, making him the story without really doing him any harm with his supporters. That is a Trump technique and it exploits the story-hungry media very effectively. Hunt quietly plodding on with that and that policy statement doesn't compete.1 -
Say what you like about Boris, he can always be relied upon to let you down.SquareRoot said:The most interesting question is how long Boris will last after becoming PM (If indeed he wins)
0 -
When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?MarqueeMark said:Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.
Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....0 -
There's a hell of an assumption there.MarqueeMark said:we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt....
0 -
This bit "Boris choosing his team" precludes this bit "properly functioning Govt"MarqueeMark said:we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....
0 -
2002?nichomar said:
When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?MarqueeMark said:Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.
Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....0 -
Who cares about the debate? The great bulk of the votes are in before then....the only people waiting their outome of the debate are those deciding on precisely how to spoil their ballot paper.Peter_the_Punter said:This doesn't appear to be one of TSE's better suggestions (and they are generally pretty good, regardless of his modest claims for them.)
There's a debate to come, isn't there? That's a major hazard. And I see no reason why he should exceed YouGov's estimate.
He'll win easilt enough, but 80% is a very high bar.0 -
Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/0 -
6/4 for the band which two opinion polls have marked as the winning result seems very fair. However, I’m not able to take advantage because I’m in Hungary at the moment without a VPN and Ladbrokes don’t extend that far.0
-
A random nice story, even though it's an obituary:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/07/indonesias-much-loved-disaster-agency-chief-dies-of-cancer0 -
Not really. It's the usual Brexiter obsession with goods and tariffs, ignoring the more wide-ranging issues with services and non-tariff barriers. Little more than wishful thinking and "let's hope for the best".geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/0 -
One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.
One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.1 -
Actually I would say 2014ydoethur said:
2002?nichomar said:
When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?MarqueeMark said:Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.
Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....0 -
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/1 -
But it also allows a huge number of ambitious MPs to be given a leg up in thoseambitions, as a whole tranche of those who have proved useless for 3 years get culled.alex. said:One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.
One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.
The supply of ambitious MPs always exceeds demand.0 -
Also astonishing that May's deal has now become to be represented as "Brexit in Name Only". It's as if any thing that retains any sensible relationship with the EU is not Brexit. Shows how far down the rabbit hole these Brexiteers have gone.IanB2 said:
Not really. It's the usual Brexiter obsession with goods and tariffs, ignoring the more wide-ranging issues with services and non-tariff barriers. Little more than wishful thinking and "let's hope for the best".geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/0 -
BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.alex. said:One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.
One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.0 -
A sad limitation on the Single Market, and not one that we can easilynegotiate post Brexit.AlastairMeeks said:6/4 for the band which two opinion polls have marked as the winning result seems very fair. However, I’m not able to take advantage because I’m in Hungary at the moment without a VPN and Ladbrokes don’t extend that far.
0 -
2010-15nichomar said:
When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?MarqueeMark said:Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.
Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....1 -
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
0 -
I work in education. I'm sticking with 2002.alex. said:
Actually I would say 2014ydoethur said:
2002?nichomar said:
When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?MarqueeMark said:Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.
Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....0 -
Mr. Alex, it's simultaneously departing in name only *and* so extreme that Remain MPs can't support it.
(The deal has significant flaws, most obviously the backstop, although the political class collectively opposing every option is not to their credit).
To turn back the clock, I was very surprised when, after the first defeat, May didn't propose a new vote which was her deal or another referendum. It would've, I think, almost certainly have passed.
And if it didn't, it would at least have moved things forward towards an actual decision.
That's the greatest criticism of our politicians right now. They're not making a decision of any kind, merely prolonging uncertainty.0 -
We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.tlg86 said:
BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.alex. said:One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.
One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.0 -
Meanwhile, in world peace news:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48899243
Iran's breaching the uranium enrichment limit.0 -
I'd say 2000 after which Blair gave up on fiscal rectitude and it all went tits up after that, especially when Brown became PM.ydoethur said:
I work in education. I'm sticking with 2002.alex. said:
Actually I would say 2014ydoethur said:
2002?nichomar said:
When was the last properly functioning government in the U.K.?MarqueeMark said:Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.
Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....0 -
As I said, unhinged nonsense. It’s sad to see an eminent historian reduced to such babble.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.0 -
The campaign is deliberately strung out in order to give us a new prime minister immediately before the recess starts, thus giving Boris (or Hunt) eight weeks or so to get his feet under the Cabinet table without having to answer to parliament, and to shore up DUP support before any confidence vote.MarqueeMark said:Memo to the '22: this campaign is way too long. Given most will have voted by the post on Monday, it only needed a week tops to send votes back. We could have had a new PM getting on with business by Wednesday.
Ideally, Hunt will condede and we can at least start the process of Boris choosing his team, ready for a properly functioning Govt. again....0 -
Who knows, she might have done that if the ERG had managed to be successful in calling a VONC 3 months earlier. As it was she would have probably had one called and lost.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Alex, it's simultaneously departing in name only *and* so extreme that Remain MPs can't support it.
(The deal has significant flaws, most obviously the backstop, although the political class collectively opposing every option is not to their credit).
To turn back the clock, I was very surprised when, after the first defeat, May didn't propose a new vote which was her deal or another referendum. It would've, I think, almost certainly have passed.
And if it didn't, it would at least have moved things forward towards an actual decision.
That's the greatest criticism of our politicians right now. They're not making a decision of any kind, merely prolonging uncertainty.
Totally agree about uncertainty. That's part of the problem with the extension and the potential prospect of another and/or several more. Businesses won't invest (at all, or in this country - depending on their nature) until they know the trading environment that they will be dealing in. And where they really need to invest and have the option between the UK and elsewhere, they have no option but to go elsewhere. By the time someone actually moves us on to the next stage, that investment will be gone forever. Of course if they can get over the frustration of the constant melodrama, the EU no doubt realise that rolling extensions have many advantages for themselves.
0 -
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.0 -
Doesn’t Johnson want to reduce the number of cabinet positions? I see two problems first he reduces the number of people he can reward and secondly it gives the incompetent ones double the chance to fuck upalex. said:
We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.tlg86 said:
BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.alex. said:One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.
One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.0 -
There are two options.ydoethur said:
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.
2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.
I’m not sure which is worse.0 -
No doubt he's doing the usual thing of conflating the transition period with the what happens after. And rather undermines himself further by referencing the political declaration which, as has been made clear repeatedly is non-legally binding.ydoethur said:
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
And even the rest is just ultimately a treaty, which we could, if we wished, abrogate from.0 -
Didn't he also sign that letter about GATT rules which Cash described as the definitive legal ruling on the topic when even a cursory reading of it showed that it was twaddle from start to finish?AlastairMeeks said:
There are two options.ydoethur said:
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.
2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.
I’m not sure which is worse.
Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.
Still, writing rubbish for money is very on trend these days. One of its finest proponents is about to become PM. So one can hardly blame Tombs for wanting to join in.0 -
Halving the size of the Cabinet was a kite flown by some of Boris's supporters, not the man himself. This seems to be a characteristic of Boris's campaign. As you say, it was never likely to fly.nichomar said:
Doesn’t Johnson want to reduce the number of cabinet positions? I see two problems first he reduces the number of people he can reward and secondly it gives the incompetent ones double the chance to fuck upalex. said:
We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.tlg86 said:
BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.alex. said:One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.
One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.0 -
One of the biggest reasons for the mess is that Parliamentary votes are only allowed on a yes/no basis, not on an either/or basis. Which is why every option has been voted down.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Alex, it's simultaneously departing in name only *and* so extreme that Remain MPs can't support it.
(The deal has significant flaws, most obviously the backstop, although the political class collectively opposing every option is not to their credit).
To turn back the clock, I was very surprised when, after the first defeat, May didn't propose a new vote which was her deal or another referendum. It would've, I think, almost certainly have passed.
And if it didn't, it would at least have moved things forward towards an actual decision.
That's the greatest criticism of our politicians right now. They're not making a decision of any kind, merely prolonging uncertainty.
Whichever option is eventually chosen by a single yes/no vote, then needs implementing in primary legislation, which needs to go through both Houses and is amendable in the usual manner.
It’s a recipe for stalemate.0 -
They should organise an actual kite flying contest amongst Tory MPs. Winners get to run the government. Might be informative.DecrepitJohnL said:
Halving the size of the Cabinet was a kite flown by some of Boris's supporters, not the man himself. This seems to be a characteristic of Boris's campaign. As you say, it was never likely to fly.nichomar said:
Doesn’t Johnson want to reduce the number of cabinet positions? I see two problems first he reduces the number of people he can reward and secondly it gives the incompetent ones double the chance to fuck upalex. said:
We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.tlg86 said:
BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.alex. said:One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.
One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.
0 -
Would TSE perhaps be able to answer? He did History at Cambridge and therefore may have known him?AlastairMeeks said:
There are two options.ydoethur said:
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.
2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.
I’m not sure which is worse.
I will admit I find Tombs' work quite heavy going, compared to that of say Price or Doyle.0 -
The Robert Tombs article is another sign that the Spectator is mutating into a supermarket tabloid for golf club bores. Regrettably this seems to be a growth market.0
-
They're going to have to halve the size of the Cabinet. How else will they find space in the cabinet room for Boris' colossal swollen head?DecrepitJohnL said:
Halving the size of the Cabinet was a kite flown by some of Boris's supporters, not the man himself. This seems to be a characteristic of Boris's campaign. As you say, it was never likely to fly.nichomar said:
Doesn’t Johnson want to reduce the number of cabinet positions? I see two problems first he reduces the number of people he can reward and secondly it gives the incompetent ones double the chance to fuck upalex. said:
We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.tlg86 said:
BiB - And what would be wrong with that? As it happens I think we should meet the 0.7% commitment on international aid (though I don't agree with where we spend it)). But if that's what the government of the day wants to do, what's wrong with that? The MPs know what they have to do if they really don't like it.alex. said:One of the more neglected dangers of a "no deal" Brexit administration IMO is that many of the more sensible and pragmatic Tory politicians may depart the scene for the backbenches or worse, and the ideologues will take key positions in cabinet. Many cabinet members when they take up posts don't know as much as they think they do about the departments they are running, but more sensible ones are prepared to be educated to some extent (and no that doesn't mean automatically accepting everything the Civil Service and others tell them, but it doesn't mean automatically dismissing it either where it conflicts with their pre-existing views). And politicians pursuing ideological agendas as Cabinet members can have disastrous effects, especially in less visible departments which are lower down the scale in the public consciousness (and therefore don't get as much attention from the PM/Cabinet Office). Until the sh*t hits the fan.
One can quite easily imagine a hardline Brexiteer taking control of DfID for example and proudly on day one announcing their intention to abolish the department, or taking control of CLG and pretending they were Eric Pickles circa 2010 as if the last 9 years haven't happened.0 -
No tinge of bitterness there that your wonderful pieces for pb.com are pro bono.....Cyclefree said:
Didn't he also sign that letter about GATT rules which Cash described as the definitive legal ruling on the topic when even a cursory reading of it showed that it was twaddle from start to finish?AlastairMeeks said:
There are two options.ydoethur said:
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.
2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.
I’m not sure which is worse.
Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.
Still, writing rubbish for money is very on trend these days. One of its finest proponents is about to become PM. So one can hardly blame Tombs for wanting to join in. 0 -
Boris would say that 2) is a perfectly reasonable course of action.AlastairMeeks said:
There are two options.ydoethur said:
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.
2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.
I’m not sure which is worse.0 -
Indeed. I know they didn't like it, but Boris and JRM voted for BINO? Give me a break.alex. said:
Also astonishing that May's deal has now become to be represented as "Brexit in Name Only". It's as if any thing that retains any sensible relationship with the EU is not Brexit. Shows how far down the rabbit hole these Brexiteers have gone.IanB2 said:
Not really. It's the usual Brexiter obsession with goods and tariffs, ignoring the more wide-ranging issues with services and non-tariff barriers. Little more than wishful thinking and "let's hope for the best".geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/0 -
The Spectator seems to be a complete mess these days (or at least the online version). Fraser Nelson seems to be operating a regime which allows the publication of virtually anything, without requiring any basic editorial standards to be applied in advance. And always justifies it on the grounds of 'freedom of expression' and 'letting all viewpoints be heard'.Cyclefree said:
Didn't he also sign that letter about GATT rules which Cash described as the definitive legal ruling on the topic when even a cursory reading of it showed that it was twaddle from start to finish?AlastairMeeks said:
There are two options.ydoethur said:
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.
1) Robert Tombs is an idiot.
2) Robert Tombs is not an idiot, knows what he writing is rubbish but is willing to do it anyway for the money and the publicity.
I’m not sure which is worse.
Yes, it was him. He ought to stick to medieval history or whatever his speciality is.
Still, writing rubbish for money is very on trend these days. One of its finest proponents is about to become PM. So one can hardly blame Tombs for wanting to join in.
It was the Spectator blog which caused arguably killed off the Withdrawal agreement at source with that ridiculous hatchet job with took enormous chunks of the rules surrounding the transition period (which of course in effect largely replicated current EU arrangements) and determined that they bound the UK to them for ever more. So many ERG members tied themselves to publicly rubbishing and opposing the WA on the back of it that by the time some of them realised the error of their ways and finally came round to voting for it, it was too late to save it.
0 -
Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summaryydoethur said:
Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:
(1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.
(2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.
(3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
0 -
Once the US tore up its side of the treaty, why should Iran stick to their side of it?Morris_Dancer said:Meanwhile, in world peace news:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48899243
Iran's breaching the uranium enrichment limit.0 -
The Spectator has cornered the market for nostalgic xenophobes who are not that interested in reality. It does pretty well as a result, but it’s not a serious publication.AlastairMeeks said:The Robert Tombs article is another sign that the Spectator is mutating into a supermarket tabloid for golf club bores. Regrettably this seems to be a growth market.
0 -
Too late to comment on the story FPT and apologies if already mentioned, but it does emphasise the uncertainty when you consider that the Johnson majority of 140 from the Comres hypothetical poll fed into Electoral Calculus is 44 seats worse than the Comres poll immediately before May called the snap election (Con 46, Lab 25, LD 11, UKIP 9) fed into Electoral Calculus set on 2015 GE outcome.
(Con 417, Lab 147, SNP 56, LD 8; the latter masking 3 losses and 3 gains)
0 -
-
@williamglenn FPT
You said that “once we are in a single currency there will be plenty of time to adjust to any relative value disparities”
We’ll have all the time in the world
But there are only 2 ways to do it:
1) mass unemployment and population drain from the over valued region/country
2) fiscal transfers
I suggest that both of these are politically impossible.0 -
The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.alex. said:
We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.
As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.1 -
Why is it that Remainers fall back on analogies involving death and violence?OnlyLivingBoy said:If it were a Jonestown Brexit (where the Brexiteers drink the Kool Aid and the rest of us are unaffected) I could get on board with it. In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself. Sadly, we are all going to be in the compound when it goes up in flames.
0 -
Unlike what? Give us the benefit of your knowledge of serious publications o wiseacre.SouthamObserver said:
The Spectator has cornered the market for nostalgic xenophobes who are not that interested in reality. It does pretty well as a result, but it’s not a serious publication.AlastairMeeks said:The Robert Tombs article is another sign that the Spectator is mutating into a supermarket tabloid for golf club bores. Regrettably this seems to be a growth market.
0 -
Britain would be leaving the single market and able to control immigration from the EU. Those are two highly meaningful steps by any measure and thus any suggestion that Theresa May’s deal was Brexit In Name Only is just unhinged nonsense. Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.geoffw said:
Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summaryydoethur said:Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:
(1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.
(2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.
(3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/0 -
A metaphor about extreme self-harm driven by cultism is perhaps not entirely inappropriate.Charles said:
Why is it that Remainers fall back on analogies involving death and violence?OnlyLivingBoy said:If it were a Jonestown Brexit (where the Brexiteers drink the Kool Aid and the rest of us are unaffected) I could get on board with it. In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself. Sadly, we are all going to be in the compound when it goes up in flames.
0 -
Great insight, coming from you.AlastairMeeks said:Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.
0 -
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/
The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.0 -
If it were Brexit in name only it would almost certainly command majority support in the Commons and the country.AlastairMeeks said:
Britain would be leaving the single market and able to control immigration from the EU. Those are two highly meaningful steps by any measure and thus any suggestion that Theresa May’s deal was Brexit In Name Only is just unhinged nonsense. Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.geoffw said:
Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summaryydoethur said:Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:
(1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.
(2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.
(3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
0 -
And hopefully asking pertinent questions in the right places?NickPalmer said:
The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.alex. said:
With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.
As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
Fundamentally I agree totally - which is where this thread started. The danger that a "no deal Brexit" Government won't end up with subordinates competent enough to take decisions without serious risk. Because the most competent ones will be excluded either by their personal choice, or by the elevation of Brexiteer ideologues to deliver the main Government policy.
In some ways it's the same problem Labour have for entirely different reasons (and obviously from a different angle - they don't take decisions!). The Labour front bench is a joke (you can disagree if you wish) but I have no doubt that with a different leadership it could be miles ahead in the polls in very short time, not least because there is serious heavyweight talent and ability on their backbenches that could be rapidly brought back from the cold.
0 -
Now address the bits you didn’t quote.geoffw said:0 -
I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.0 -
Is it because they’re traitors?Charles said:
Why is it that Remainers fall back on analogies involving death and violence?OnlyLivingBoy said:If it were a Jonestown Brexit (where the Brexiteers drink the Kool Aid and the rest of us are unaffected) I could get on board with it. In fact I'd probably chip in for their one way tickets to Guyana myself. Sadly, we are all going to be in the compound when it goes up in flames.
0 -
No such mistake is made. Satellite status is undesirable and it will happen under the WDA.FF43 said:
The author (and perhaps you?) is making the mistake that because satellite status is undesirable, it won't happen. Rogers deals with actual probabilities.geoffw said:
He sets out clearly why it is BINO.AlastairMeeks said:
I rolled my eyes when he started with the unhinged nonsense that Theresa May’s deal is Brexit In Name Only. The article deteriorated from there.geoffw said:Excellent piece this morning taking apart the forlorn pessimism of Ivan Rogers's doom-mongering.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/07/what-sir-ivan-rogers-gets-wrong-about-brexit/
The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration place us at the disposal of the EU, which safeguards its privileged access to our market (which it can also offer to others without our consent), keeps us indefinitely under EU jurisdiction directly applicable through UK courts, gives the EU the right to impose fines and trade sanctions and explicitly denies any recourse to international arbitration.
Likewise he claims May's Deal is Brexit In Name Only because it isn't the Brexit he wants.1 -
The recent book on PMQs, Punch and Judy Politics, asserts that Mrs Thatcher's change to answering any questions marked a massive power grab by Number 10, because it meant all departments having to keep the prime minister in the loop for all major and most minor decisions. This practice has been continued by all her successors. Before Thatcher, the prime minister would refer any departmental questions to the appropriate secretary of state.NickPalmer said:
The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.alex. said:
We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.
As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics0 -
It would also completely remove us from the political aspects of the European project. Remember how there were howls of complaint from the Leave side when people argued that Remain was the "status quo" option, because the EU never stood still and was on an inexorable journey towards a Trans-national superstate?AlastairMeeks said:
Britain would be leaving the single market and able to control immigration from the EU. Those are two highly meaningful steps by any measure and thus any suggestion that Theresa May’s deal was Brexit In Name Only is just unhinged nonsense. Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.geoffw said:
Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summaryydoethur said:Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:
(1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.
(2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.
(3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
0 -
Clearly not - or at least, if they have they haven't understood it. Articles 87:5 and 89:1:geoffw said:Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either?
If the United Kingdom does not comply with a decision referred to in Article 95(1) of this Agreement, or fails to give legal effect in the United Kingdom's legal order to a decision, as referred to in that provision, that was addressed to a natural or legal person residing or established in the United Kingdom, the European Commission may, within 4 years from the date of the decision concerned, bring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the procedural requirements laid down in Article 258 TFEU or the second subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU, as the case may be...Judgments and orders of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period, as well as such judgments and orders handed down after the end of the transition period in proceedings referred to in Articles 86 and 87, shall have binding force in their entirety on and in the United Kingdom...
So, they are binding during the transition period, and cases arising from the TP have a limitation of four years to be brought.
And after that, nothing. Instead, if you look lower down, a special Arbitration Commission would be established. It could refer to the CJEU to make rulings on EU law, but although it could not set aside those rulings they would not apply directly in Britain.
Incidentally, I've never heard of those three people. Are they meant to be somehow impressive?0 -
You can't do either/or votes in Westminster. MPs have voted against both her deal and a new referendum.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Alex, it's simultaneously departing in name only *and* so extreme that Remain MPs can't support it.
(The deal has significant flaws, most obviously the backstop, although the political class collectively opposing every option is not to their credit).
To turn back the clock, I was very surprised when, after the first defeat, May didn't propose a new vote which was her deal or another referendum. It would've, I think, almost certainly have passed.
And if it didn't, it would at least have moved things forward towards an actual decision.
That's the greatest criticism of our politicians right now. They're not making a decision of any kind, merely prolonging uncertainty.0 -
Leaving the EU, in whatever manner, satisfies the referendum mandate. All the rest is arguing after the fact.alex. said:
It would also completely remove us from the political aspects of the European project. Remember how there were howls of complaint from the Leave side when people argued that Remain was the "status quo" option, because the EU never stood still and was on an inexorable journey towards a Trans-national superstate?AlastairMeeks said:
Britain would be leaving the single market and able to control immigration from the EU. Those are two highly meaningful steps by any measure and thus any suggestion that Theresa May’s deal was Brexit In Name Only is just unhinged nonsense. Repetition does not make it any less idiotic.geoffw said:
Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either? Quoting from the executive summaryydoethur said:Which is not actually correct. In fact, the WA specifically withdraws us from the jurisdiction of the EU legal system.
So I can only conclude he hasn't read it.The WA (of which the Northern Ireland backstop Protocol is “an integral part”) would become legally binding in international law if ratified by the UK and the EU Parliaments. The WA contains a series of remarkable features which are detrimental to the UK and which would make “Brexit” illusory:
(1) It would perpetuate the doctrines of “direct effect” and supremacy of EU law over UK law (including new EU laws on which the UK would have no voice or vote), under which the UK courts are required to strike down Acts of Parliament if found to be inconsistent with EU law or even vaguely drafted treaty provisions. The doctrines apply to the provisions of the WA itself and also any long term relationship agreement with the EU that would replace it.
(2) The WA would perpetuate the jurisdiction of the ECJ either directly, or via a backdoor mechanism modelled on the EU’s agreement with Ukraine, under which the supposedly neutral arbitral tribunal set up under the WA would be bound on matters of EU law by decisions of the ECJ. Meanwhile the ECJ itself would have become an entirely foreign court with no post-Brexit British judge.
(3) The WA has uniquely stringent mechanisms for breaches by the UK, which would make the UK subject to financial penalties or even to discriminatory trade sanctions. Any attempted recourse by the UK to WTO disputes procedures would be prohibited.
https://briefingsforbrexit.com/avoiding-the-trap-of-the-withdrawal-agreement-the-way-ahead-for-a-new-prime-minister/
0 -
3. There was something very iffy about the poll and its origins (The Daily Telegraph). ComRes may themselves be respectable as a pollster, but it is well know that the commissioners of polls can go a long way towards influencing their outcomes if they so wish (especially outside of the standard VI polling where the pollsters have a lot more control over the basic methodology). Oh and the fact that no other poll on the subject has come close to replicating its results.Zephyr said:I’m not sure about this thread header Mr Screaming. What a terrible position for the Conservative party as a broad church today and going forward, if Boris and his policies in this contest is as broad the membership now are.
I am also very suspicious of OGH previous thread, perhaps setting him up to then quickly knock him over. There are reasons Boris might not get a very big polling bounce akin to historic comparisons
1. Brexit. All our politics today is through prism of brexit. If you are die hard Remainer why would you warm to him in opinion poll?
2. Celebrity. Following on from above, he’s the biggest thing to celebrity politician we have had for very long time, meaning he’s hardly a fresh face or unknown quantity. If you were to ask people about Gordon brown as prime minister today they would say what an absolute load of crap, but probably wouldn’t have on the day he became prime minister, not so I argue with Boris, just reading this site alone he has already been quantified, weigh measured and for many found wanting, so once in job will instantly start meeting their expectations.
I've no doubt that OGH doesn't give much credence to the poll (and will have said so previously on here), and agree that he was probably being mischievous in doing a thread about it (especially several weeks after it was published!), for other reasons.0 -
Argumentum ab auctoritate is unconvincing at the best of times. It does at least require the existence of auctoritas...ydoethur said:
Clearly not - or at least, if they have they haven't understood it. Articles 87:5 and 89:1:geoffw said:Perhaps these people (Martin Howe, Richard Aikens, Dr T.D. Grant) haven't read it either?
If the United Kingdom does not comply with a decision referred to in Article 95(1) of this Agreement, or fails to give legal effect in the United Kingdom's legal order to a decision, as referred to in that provision, that was addressed to a natural or legal person residing or established in the United Kingdom, the European Commission may, within 4 years from the date of the decision concerned, bring the matter to the Court of Justice of the European Union in accordance with the procedural requirements laid down in Article 258 TFEU or the second subparagraph of Article 108(2) TFEU, as the case may be...Judgments and orders of the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down before the end of the transition period, as well as such judgments and orders handed down after the end of the transition period in proceedings referred to in Articles 86 and 87, shall have binding force in their entirety on and in the United Kingdom...
So, they are binding during the transition period, and cases arising from the TP have a limitation of four years to be brought.
And after that, nothing. Instead, if you look lower down, a special Arbitration Commission would be established. It could refer to the CJEU to make rulings on EU law, but although it could not set aside those rulings they would not apply directly in Britain.
Incidentally, I've never heard of those three people. Are they meant to be somehow impressive?0 -
We should though you took my words out of context. I was replying to a ludicrously OTT claim that a no deal Brexit would devastate us. I'm not a no dealer, but it wouldn't devastate us. It would be a minor inconvenience and we can do better than that but we may need to go through no deal as a stop gap before we can get a better deal.eristdoof said:
More reassuring words from a No-Dealer.Philip_Thompson said:
It won't devastate us. If some of those 44% of exports have to pay tariffs or deal with non-tariff barriers then so be it. Its a shame, but it isn't the end of the world.
Shouldn't we be aiming for something a bit higher than "It won't devastate us"?0 -
The recent book on PMQs, Punch and Judy Politics, asserts that Mrs Thatcher's change to answering any questions marked a massive power grab by Number 10, because it meant all departments having to keep the prime minister in the loop for all major and most minor decisions. This practice has been continued by all her successors. Before Thatcher, the prime minister would refer any departmental questions to the appropriate secretary of state.DecrepitJohnL said:
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
Interesting. Wonder if Johnson has read the book, and might seek to return to the previous situation?
Although actually - wasn't there always a way around it? - there used to be this farce at PMQs where dozens of MPs questions (which all had to be pre-submitted) were "asking about the PM's engagements for the day" - which would then lead (after the PM "referred to the answer they gave a few moments ago") to a basically open question that would hardly ever be ruled out of order.
Did that not pre-date Thatcher?
And of course the LOTO could always ask whatever they wished.
0 -
‘‘Tis but a scratch....Philip_Thompson said:
We should though you took my words out of context. I was replying to a ludicrously OTT claim that a no deal Brexit would devastate us. I'm not a no dealer, but it wouldn't devastate us. It would be a minor inconvenience and we can do better than that but we may need to go through no deal as a stop gap before we can get a better deal.eristdoof said:
More reassuring words from a No-Dealer.Philip_Thompson said:
It won't devastate us. If some of those 44% of exports have to pay tariffs or deal with non-tariff barriers then so be it. Its a shame, but it isn't the end of the world.
Shouldn't we be aiming for something a bit higher than "It won't devastate us"?
0 -
Sun shining on God's country, Ayrshire at least.Cyclefree said:
Well, the rain is much needed by my garden. So I do like that.OldKingCole said:Grey and cool this morning, and looks like Boris is not only going to win, but lead the country into his form of Brexit.
What's to like?
The rest not so much.0 -
Barry Gardiner on Sophy making an utter fool of himself
I am coming round to the idea that the Lib Dems will annihilate labour in London and the South and Boris will do the same in leave seats with the SNP running riot in Scotland
I see little prospect of a Corbyn led labour government, indeed I would not be surprised to see the Lib Dems being in a very strong position post any GE0 -
I don't know if you have read Stephen Bungays interesting book on strategy and delegation, modelled on the Imperial German Army and why it was an effective organisation through encouraging junior initiative:NickPalmer said:
The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.alex. said:
We can have debates about whether there is anything wrong or right with it. But my point is about individuals coming in and taking far reaching decisions based on pre-conceived perceptions and ideology, before taking the time to actually think through the consequences. With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.
As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
The Art of Action: How Leaders Close the Gaps Between Plans, Actions and Results https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1857885597/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_DMAiDbYZFM1TQ
The failure of the Brexiteers is the failure to have a strategy, the failure to know what they are trying to achieve and the failure to convince others that it is a worthwhile objective.0 -
Interesting, and I guess that’s the origin of “Question number one” which now traditionally opens PMQs with the PM commenting on their engagements of the day.alex. said:
Interesting. Wonder if Johnson has read the book, and might seek to return to the previous situation?DecrepitJohnL said:
A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.
As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
The recent book on PMQs, Punch and Judy Politics, asserts that Mrs Thatcher's change to answering any questions marked a massive power grab by Number 10, because it meant all departments having to keep the prime minister in the loop for all major and most minor decisions. This practice has been continued by all her successors. Before Thatcher, the prime minister would refer any departmental questions to the appropriate secretary of state.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
Although actually - wasn't there always a way around it? - there used to be this farce at PMQs where dozens of MPs questions (which all had to be pre-submitted) were "asking about the PM's engagements for the day" - which would then lead (after the PM "referred to the answer they gave a few moments ago") to a basically open question that would hardly ever be ruled out of order.
Did that not pre-date Thatcher?
And of course the LOTO could always ask whatever they wished.0 -
Can you name any of this supposed heavyweight talent , I need a laugh.alex. said:
And hopefully asking pertinent questions in the right places?NickPalmer said:
The second point is interesting and I do know a bit about it. Broadly speaking, power is delegated by default. If the PM is interested in something, (s)he decides. If not, but the Sec of State is, the SoS decides, Otherwise the junior Minister decides. Now, you're perfectly right that this may mean that the Minister for Paperclips foolishly commits the Government to liberalising the paperclip industry and poisonous paperclips flood the market. But the alternative is the Gordon Brown approach, that everything has to go to the PM, who works 20/7 to scrutinise everything.alex. said:
With a further point that this may not even be what the "government of the day" actually wants to do, but in some areas many far reaching decisions can be taken effectively by individual cabinet ministers, before "the government" has actually realised what is happening or the wider consequences they are going to have to deal with as a result.
A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.
As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
Fundamentally I agree totally - which is where this thread started. The danger that a "no deal Brexit" Government won't end up with subordinates competent enough to take decisions without serious risk. Because the most competent ones will be excluded either by their personal choice, or by the elevation of Brexiteer ideologues to deliver the main Government policy.
In some ways it's the same problem Labour have for entirely different reasons (and obviously from a different angle - they don't take decisions!). The Labour front bench is a joke (you can disagree if you wish) but I have no doubt that with a different leadership it could be miles ahead in the polls in very short time, not least because there is serious heavyweight talent and ability on their backbenches that could be rapidly brought back from the cold.0 -
-
Not every Remainer is convinced that No Deal would be devastating in the short term. A number of us see it as Brexit dying with a whimper rather than a bang. I do see a gradual deteriation in business environment and economics as well as a corrosion of Britains social structure. Pointless self harm, but not fatal.Philip_Thompson said:
We should though you took my words out of context. I was replying to a ludicrously OTT claim that a no deal Brexit would devastate us. I'm not a no dealer, but it wouldn't devastate us. It would be a minor inconvenience and we can do better than that but we may need to go through no deal as a stop gap before we can get a better deal.eristdoof said:
More reassuring words from a No-Dealer.Philip_Thompson said:
It won't devastate us. If some of those 44% of exports have to pay tariffs or deal with non-tariff barriers then so be it. Its a shame, but it isn't the end of the world.
Shouldn't we be aiming for something a bit higher than "It won't devastate us"?0 -
"Jonestown Brexit at all costs wing" *giggles*
It's as bad in Labour. We have the Jonestown Jeremy at all costs wing. Unlike the Tory Kool-aid drinkers who don't know it will kill them, the fanatical Jezbollah worshippers DO know it will kill them and don't care, better dead than "Tory-lite"0 -
Perhaps I should just settle for "greater level of talent than is currently present in situ", some of whom weigh a lot.malcolmg said:
Can you name any of this supposed heavyweight talent , I need a laugh.alex. said:
And hopefully asking pertinent questions in the right places?
Fundamentally I agree totally - which is where this thread started. The danger that a "no deal Brexit" Government won't end up with subordinates competent enough to take decisions without serious risk. Because the most competent ones will be excluded either by their personal choice, or by the elevation of Brexiteer ideologues to deliver the main Government policy.
In some ways it's the same problem Labour have for entirely different reasons (and obviously from a different angle - they don't take decisions!). The Labour front bench is a joke (you can disagree if you wish) but I have no doubt that with a different leadership it could be miles ahead in the polls in very short time, not least because there is serious heavyweight talent and ability on their backbenches that could be rapidly brought back from the cold.
0 -
The open, engagements of the day question, is credited (with a lot of reservations) to Labour's John Golding MP in 1975. In 1997, it was agreed to take it as read so prime ministers from Blair on have not had to refer the honourable lady or gentleman to the reply I made some moments ago half a dozen times each day.Sandpit said:
Interesting, and I guess that’s the origin of “Question number one” which now traditionally opens PMQs with the PM commenting on their engagements of the day.alex. said:
Interesting. Wonder if Johnson has read the book, and might seek to return to the previous situation?DecrepitJohnL said:
A good manager chooses subordinates who are competent enough to know when they can take decisions without serious risk. That's better than the "I must see everything" model, because the manager isn't likely to be any more expert on, say, paperclips than the Minister who spends all day on the subject.
As a reasonably senior manager myself, I struggle with this. I have strong intuitive views, unsupported by evidence, on what makes a good charity appeal. I constantly want to overrule experts in my team who do this as their main job. But they're usually right and I'm probably wrong. So I settle for looking briefly at their ideas and usually nodding them through. But I don't have the ego drive that most PMs have, and that may be a reason why we tend to get micromanagers in Number 10.
The recent book on PMQs, Punch and Judy Politics, asserts that Mrs Thatcher's change to answering any questions marked a massive power grab by Number 10, because it meant all departments having to keep the prime minister in the loop for all major and most minor decisions. This practice has been continued by all her successors. Before Thatcher, the prime minister would refer any departmental questions to the appropriate secretary of state.
https://www.bitebackpublishing.com/books/punch-and-judy-politics
Although actually - wasn't there always a way around it? - there used to be this farce at PMQs where dozens of MPs questions (which all had to be pre-submitted) were "asking about the PM's engagements for the day" - which would then lead (after the PM "referred to the answer they gave a few moments ago") to a basically open question that would hardly ever be ruled out of order.
Did that not pre-date Thatcher?
And of course the LOTO could always ask whatever they wished.1
