"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
and fox hunting. I suspect Labour's schools policy will be their fox hunting. Popular with the choir but a vote-repellant for many.
... in your bubble. What proportion of the 7% who send their children to private schools would have voted Labour but for this policy? Not many.
Personally, I could not care less about Labour's school's policy. I had to go to a comprehensive and suffer it, so why should those from affluent backgrounds get a free pass? I never used to see it or feel it but the UK seems to have a financial division where the wealthy opt out of suboptimal services the rest of us have to endure. Something needs to change...
Hmm. When you say you had to endure a comprehensive, was it the comprehensive aspect per se that you objected to, or something that could have been remedied by better resources within a non-selective system?
I dont think it was a resource problem but the non-selective essence of the pupil pool. Physical violence by the less academic was a real problem! You used to live in fear of being attacked whether it was walking to and from school, break time or even in classes. For instance I even chose to do home economics instead of woodwork or metalwork as I was frightened of the other male pupils! I do feel my secondary education held me back but that is life, instead of a red brick University I went to a new University. My life could have been on a better trajectory but ultimately die to health problems; it is irrelevant for me...
Thanks for explaining. I went to a rural comprehensive, but by the sound if it, it didn't have the problems of discipline you describe. My fear of woodwork and metalwork was a result of only my incompetence. I understand your feeling. I also understand your feeling that it's not an adequate solution for a selected minority to be able to opt out of that situation.
Regarding an extension. It’s entirely possible that they could offer one but say it’s final . No more after that and if they make it just 3 months then that finishes off a second vote .
I suppose the interesting aspect here is what would happen to the Lib Dem vote , as the only revoke party the message would be clear , they are your last chance to stop Brexit .
I think it's been said before that No Deal would impact the UK much more than the EU but within the EU Ireland would probably be impacted more severely even than Britain.
I therefore find it extremely unlikely that the EU would ever choose No Deal ahead of continued extensions; they would not throw one of their own to the dogs.
They could still say its final. Yes really final, honest. People still seem surprised when politicians lie, despite the public both believing they lie and indeed rewarding them for lying.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
and fox hunting. I suspect Labour's schools policy will be their fox hunting. Popular with the choir but a vote-repellant for many.
... in your bubble. What proportion of the 7% who send their children to private schools would have voted Labour but for this policy? Not many.
What would be the consequences of those 7% transferring to state schools without any extra funding for those schools ?
Plus together with things such as Labour's 'Garden Tax' it looks like an assault on nice middle class lifestyles.
I've got news for you: the middle classes don't send their kids to private schools, only the richest 7% can afford to do that. In my book the richest 7% do not constitute the 'middle'.
Reminds me of Rachel Johnson's ridiculous claim to be 'middle class' in an otherwise polished and witty appearance by her on last week's HIGNFY
In Edinburgh something like 20% of kids go to private schools. It's somewhat unlikely that they are all in the top 7%. I have had kids at a private school in Dundee now for the best part of 20 years (the end is in sight, thank the Lord) . Over that time there has been a real change in the make up of the school from a large domination of those with inherited wealth to many, many more middle class professionals such as teachers. The kids of NHS Doctors now probably form the largest single segment, well paid no doubt but probably only in the top 7% if on enhanced payments.
The parents of those attending the school now are making real sacrifices to have their kids there. They are not statistically in the middle of the earnings bracket but they are not in the elite either.
I take your point @DavidL and I entriely respect your decisions and sacrifices in respect of your own children.
Nonetheless, I believe overall that the private education system has a persistent and corrosive influence on this country and something needs to change. It cannot be right that disproportionately high percentages of positions of influence in the judiciary, parliament, media, big business etc. are held by the 7%.
Regarding an extension. It’s entirely possible that they could offer one but say it’s final . No more after that and if they make it just 3 months then that finishes off a second vote .
I suppose the interesting aspect here is what would happen to the Lib Dem vote , as the only revoke party the message would be clear , they are your last chance to stop Brexit .
I think it's been said before that No Deal would impact the UK much more than the EU but within the EU Ireland would probably be impacted more severely even than Britain.
I therefore find it extremely unlikely that the EU would ever choose No Deal ahead of continued extensions; they would not throw one of their own to the dogs.
In fact, I don't think they would want to throw us to the dogs either - however much we might seem to be begging for it - regardless of how much they are demonised by a politically driven press in this country.
Regarding an extension. It’s entirely possible that they could offer one but say it’s final . No more after that and if they make it just 3 months then that finishes off a second vote .
I suppose the interesting aspect here is what would happen to the Lib Dem vote , as the only revoke party the message would be clear , they are your last chance to stop Brexit .
I think it's been said before that No Deal would impact the UK much more than the EU but within the EU Ireland would probably be impacted more severely even than Britain.
I therefore find it extremely unlikely that the EU would ever choose No Deal ahead of continued extensions; they would not throw one of their own to the dogs.
They could still say its final. Yes really final, honest. People still seem surprised when politicians lie, despite the public both believing they lie and indeed rewarding them for lying.
It's not what they say that counts, it's what they do, in this instance.
Personally i'm sick of weak, self centred careerists (oops is there anyone left) - just get Boris to rule out No Deal, call Corbyn's bluff and go for the GE. Nobody wants it (save for the nutters) and surely for Boris this means a few more votes at the ballot boxes. As David Lloyd would say "Get on with the game...... "
How does Boris rule out No Deal - without then being accused by the usual suspects of being a liar???
If we get into the FTA negotiations and the EU play ultra-hardball - and yet we cannot walk away. How does that work? No-one has given me an answer on this.
They know we dont want no deal, we know they know so what's the point in the threat? Let's negotiate like grown-ups(ha-ha). I know what you say but we cannot go on like this surely??
Regarding an extension. It’s entirely possible that they could offer one but say it’s final . No more after that and if they make it just 3 months then that finishes off a second vote .
If there were a way of making everyone believe it was final, maybe.
The only way I can see that being viable is for someone to actually wield a veto, until then nobody will.
EG if Macron were to say "No to January, I will agree to 1 week only to ratify the deal or ramp up preparations for no deal."
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
On Bercow I think he has been very much a curate's egg of a Speaker.
On the positive side he has encouraged the modernisation of the many Parliamentary procedures, he has helped to make the committees more significant which has given alternative career paths for those not minded to bend the knee sufficiently for ministerial or shadow ministerial office, he has helped Parliament be more relevant by allowing far more urgent questions of Ministers and he has insisted on back benchers getting more time and attention at PMQs, for example.
On the negative side he is supremely arrogant, rude, allegedly a bully to his staff, vain, prone to pick favourites and more than a tad greedy. He has used his position to abuse people in a way that is inappropriate and he has been clearly partisan on Brexit. Some of his behaviours have demeaned the Office he holds and called into question whether it can be truly impartial in our febrile times.
Overall I am not at all sorry to see him go but I wouldn't claim he has been a total disaster. I would prefer a lower profile Speaker and think Hoyle will do the job admirably.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
and fox hunting. I suspect Labour's schools policy will be their fox hunting. Popular with the choir but a vote-repellant for many.
... in your bubble. What proportion of the 7% who send their children to private schools would have voted Labour but for this policy? Not many.
What would be the consequences of those 7% transferring to state schools without any extra funding for those schools ?
Plus together with things such as Labour's 'Garden Tax' it looks like an assault on nice middle class lifestyles.
I've got news for you: the middle classes don't send their kids to private schools, only the richest 7% can afford to do that. In my book the richest 7% do not constitute the 'middle'.
Reminds me of Rachel Johnson's ridiculous claim to be 'middle class' in an otherwise polished and witty appearance by her on last week's HIGNFY
In Edinburgh something like 20% of kids go to private schools. It's somewhat unlikely that they are all in the top 7%. I have had kids at a private school in Dundee now for the best part of 20 years (the end is in sight, thank the Lord) . Over that time there has been a real change in the make up of the school from a large domination of those with inherited wealth to many, many more middle class professionals such as teachers. The kids of NHS Doctors now probably form the largest single segment, well paid no doubt but probably only in the top 7% if on enhanced payments.
The parents of those attending the school now are making real sacrifices to have their kids there. They are not statistically in the middle of the earnings bracket but they are not in the elite either.
I take your point @DavidL and I entriely respect your decisions and sacrifices in respect of your own children.
Nonetheless, I believe overall that the private education system has a persistent and corrosive influence on this country and something needs to change. It cannot be right that disproportionately high percentages of positions of influence in the judiciary, parliament, media, big business etc. are held by the 7%.
Isn't that though an issue which can be narrowed much further ?
How many of that 'elite' went to a few posh private schools or a few posh state schools followed by Oxbridge.
And even for Oxford and Cambridge it narrows down to a few courses.
After all when was the last time anyone complained about an Eton and Oxford educated engineer ?
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
Has Jezza ever lied about dying in a ditch? Has Jezza ever been sacked for lying?
and fox hunting. I suspect Labour's schools policy will be their fox hunting. Popular with the choir but a vote-repellant for many.
... in your bubble. What proportion of the 7% who send their children to private schools would have voted Labour but for this policy? Not many.
What would be the consequences of those 7% transferring to state schools without any extra funding for those schools ?
Plus together with things such as Labour's 'Garden Tax' it looks like an assault on nice middle class lifestyles.
I've got news for you: the middle classes don't send their kids to private schools, only the richest 7% can afford to do that. In my book the richest 7% do not constitute the 'middle'.
Reminds me of Rachel Johnson's ridiculous claim to be 'middle class' in an otherwise polished and witty appearance by her on last week's HIGNFY
In Edinburgh something like 20% of kids go to private schools. It's somewhat unlikely that they are all in the top 7%. I have had kids at a private school in Dundee now for the best part of 20 years (the end is in sight, thank the Lord) . Over that time there has been a real change in the make up of the school from a large domination of those with inherited wealth to many, many more middle class professionals such as teachers. The kids of NHS Doctors now probably form the largest single segment, well paid no doubt but probably only in the top 7% if on enhanced payments.
The parents of those attending the school now are making real sacrifices to have their kids there. They are not statistically in the middle of the earnings bracket but they are not in the elite either.
I take your point @DavidL and I entriely respect your decisions and sacrifices in respect of your own children.
Nonetheless, I believe overall that the private education system has a persistent and corrosive influence on this country and something needs to change. It cannot be right that disproportionately high percentages of positions of influence in the judiciary, parliament, media, big business etc. are held by the 7%.
Isn't that though an issue which can be narrowed much further ?
How many of that 'elite' went to a few posh private schools or a few posh state schools followed by Oxbridge.
And even for Oxford and Cambridge it narrows down to a few courses.
After all when was the last time anyone complained about an Eton and Oxford educated engineer ?
I think it's been said before that No Deal would impact the UK much more than the EU but within the EU Ireland would probably be impacted more severely even than Britain.
I therefore find it extremely unlikely that the EU would ever choose No Deal ahead of continued extensions; they would not throw one of their own to the dogs.
It only takes one of the leaders to say no...or non.
What would be the consequences of those 7% transferring to state schools without any extra funding for those schools ?
Plus together with things such as Labour's 'Garden Tax' it looks like an assault on nice middle class lifestyles.
I've got news for you: the middle classes don't send their kids to private schools, only the richest 7% can afford to do that. In my book the richest 7% do not constitute the 'middle'.
Reminds me of Rachel Johnson's ridiculous claim to be 'middle class' in an otherwise polished and witty appearance by her on last week's HIGNFY
In Edinburgh something like 20% of kids go to private schools. It's somewhat unlikely that they are all in the top 7%. I have had kids at a private school in Dundee now for the best part of 20 years (the end is in sight, thank the Lord) . Over that time there has been a real change in the make up of the school from a large domination of those with inherited wealth to many, many more middle class professionals such as teachers. The kids of NHS Doctors now probably form the largest single segment, well paid no doubt but probably only in the top 7% if on enhanced payments.
The parents of those attending the school now are making real sacrifices to have their kids there. They are not statistically in the middle of the earnings bracket but they are not in the elite either.
I take your point @DavidL and I entriely respect your decisions and sacrifices in respect of your own children.
Nonetheless, I believe overall that the private education system has a persistent and corrosive influence on this country and something needs to change. It cannot be right that disproportionately high percentages of positions of influence in the judiciary, parliament, media, big business etc. are held by the 7%.
I don't disagree but I think that the answer to that is to improve State education to the point that the children there can compete on a more level playing field (in fact any playing fields would be a start).
As a society we do not value education nearly enough. Being a teacher (as my sister is) is a noble profession that should earn far more respect and money than it does. If we are to make a success of our future we need to improve our State schools. It is so many more times more important to our future than marginal things like Brexit. If more people felt like those willing to make the sacrifices I have described we would be in a better place.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
Has Jezza ever lied about dying in a ditch? Has Jezza ever been sacked for lying?
Jezza would not turn around and tell a TV camera that there were no media in the room. Or claim to have sent a photocopy of the Benn Act to Brussels when the document actually sent was in a different font and type size. Johnson is unable to stop himself from lying, even about trivial issues like these. And of course his private and public lives have been characterised by deception and betrayal on a grand scale.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
But of course that's a far more doubtful question than Corbyn's detractors make out.
He was photographed holding a wreath in the cemetery where an alleged terrorist was buried. He says he was commemorating the Sabra/Shatila massacre. Whether he was involved in the laying of a wreath on the alleged terrorist's grave, if so whether he realised what was alleged against the man, and whether the allegations against the man were true, is all rather uncertain, from what I've read.
It's very easy to make this kind of lazy accusation against a political opponent. "Corbyn is an antisemite" is another one. I don't believe Corbyn is actually antisemitic himself. Whether the party under his leadership has dealt effectively with antisemtism on the part of others is another question. It should be obvious that it's a different question. But in the atmosphere of today's political discourse, it seems the distinction is too subtle even to be mentioned.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
Has Jezza ever lied about dying in a ditch? Has Jezza ever been sacked for lying?
This is bald men fighting over a comb. Or, more aptly, a pair of a***holes fighting over the last sheet of bogroll.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
That's a bit of a silly game. The list of BJ's failings as a human being, though different to Corbyn's, is just as as extensive.
Of course drinkers of the Boris-Aid do seem to lose the sight of one eye, just like Corbyn's brainless disciples.
Personally i'm sick of weak, self centred careerists (oops is there anyone left) - just get Boris to rule out No Deal, call Corbyn's bluff and go for the GE. Nobody wants it (save for the nutters) and surely for Boris this means a few more votes at the ballot boxes. As David Lloyd would say "Get on with the game...... "
How does Boris rule out No Deal - without then being accused by the usual suspects of being a liar???
If we get into the FTA negotiations and the EU play ultra-hardball - and yet we cannot walk away. How does that work? No-one has given me an answer on this.
They know we dont want no deal, we know they know so what's the point in the threat? Let's negotiate like grown-ups(ha-ha). I know what you say but we cannot go on like this surely??
What threat?
Either there is a deal or there is not, no deal isn't a thing it is an absence of a deal that is all.
The only way to take no deal off the table is to ratify a deal, there is no alternative.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar.
Not by you.
He is not in Johnson's league at all on the liar front. Corbyn was probably less economical with the truth than Theresa May - we recall how many times she denied any intent to call an election in 2017 and how she subsequently quite deliberately misled different groups of Tory backbenchers with contradictory messages.
On Bercow I think he has been very much a curate's egg of a Speaker.
On the positive side he has encouraged the modernisation of the many Parliamentary procedures, he has helped to make the committees more significant which has given alternative career paths for those not minded to bend the knee sufficiently for ministerial or shadow ministerial office, he has helped Parliament be more relevant by allowing far more urgent questions of Ministers and he has insisted on back benchers getting more time and attention at PMQs, for example.
On the negative side he is supremely arrogant, rude, allegedly a bully to his staff, vain, prone to pick favourites and more than a tad greedy. He has used his position to abuse people in a way that is inappropriate and he has been clearly partisan on Brexit. Some of his behaviours have demeaned the Office he holds and called into question whether it can be truly impartial in our febrile times.
Overall I am not at all sorry to see him go but I wouldn't claim he has been a total disaster. I would prefer a lower profile Speaker and think Hoyle will do the job admirably.
On Brexit I think his position has been consistent with his earlier record of allowing Parliament to stand up against the Executive. We should remember this is more prominent since GE2017 because the Executive has been so weak.
Bercow pointed out in the chamber that during the Coalition he helped Eurosceptics to hold a debate on a referendum against the wishes of the Executive.
If he was still Speaker and an incoming Liberal Democrat government revoked Article 50 I'm sure he would act to allow MPs opposed to Revocation to have their say.
It's only because standing up for Parliament has coincided with standing up for Remain over the last few years that the appearance of bias on the subject occurs. I don't believe it's real though.
In Edinburgh something like 20% of kids go to private schools. It's somewhat unlikely that they are all in the top 7%. I have had kids at a private school in Dundee now for the best part of 20 years (the end is in sight, thank the Lord) . Over that time there has been a real change in the make up of the school from a large domination of those with inherited wealth to many, many more middle class professionals such as teachers. The kids of NHS Doctors now probably form the largest single segment, well paid no doubt but probably only in the top 7% if on enhanced payments.
The parents of those attending the school now are making real sacrifices to have their kids there. They are not statistically in the middle of the earnings bracket but they are not in the elite either.
I take your point @DavidL and I entriely respect your decisions and sacrifices in respect of your own children.
Nonetheless, I believe overall that the private education system has a persistent and corrosive influence on this country and something needs to change. It cannot be right that disproportionately high percentages of positions of influence in the judiciary, parliament, media, big business etc. are held by the 7%.
I don't disagree but I think that the answer to that is to improve State education to the point that the children there can compete on a more level playing field (in fact any playing fields would be a start).
As a society we do not value education nearly enough. Being a teacher (as my sister is) is a noble profession that should earn far more respect and money than it does. If we are to make a success of our future we need to improve our State schools. It is so many more times more important to our future than marginal things like Brexit. If more people felt like those willing to make the sacrifices I have described we would be in a better place.
I have a theory that the teaching profession lost respect when they stopped being called schoolmasters/schoolmistresses.
I have another theory that the teaching profession gets less respect because everyone remembers having some crap teachers when they were at school (along with good teachers).
Regarding an extension. It’s entirely possible that they could offer one but say it’s final . No more after that and if they make it just 3 months then that finishes off a second vote .
I suppose the interesting aspect here is what would happen to the Lib Dem vote , as the only revoke party the message would be clear , they are your last chance to stop Brexit .
I think it's been said before that No Deal would impact the UK much more than the EU but within the EU Ireland would probably be impacted more severely even than Britain.
I therefore find it extremely unlikely that the EU would ever choose No Deal ahead of continued extensions; they would not throw one of their own to the dogs.
They could still say its final. Yes really final, honest. People still seem surprised when politicians lie, despite the public both believing they lie and indeed rewarding them for lying.
It's not what they say that counts, it's what they do, in this instance.
In this instance they grant an extension. In the next instance they will also grant an extension.
It does matter if they say it is the final extension though. It changes the political environment in the UK, and gives politicians cover to vote for the deal, even if its clearly a lie (or to be charitable a threat they wont carry out).
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
Has Jezza ever lied about dying in a ditch? Has Jezza ever been sacked for lying?
Tbf lying is an asset which is essential to be a functioning party member. I am sure there are those also trained in the qualities of deceit, obfuscation, and duplicitousness. Except for those that are just plain thick and stupid....... fill in your chosen name here.
How would that progress with parliament? Would parliament need to vote to accept the terms or would the Benn Act make it binding on all parties?
According to article 50, we can leave as soon as the withdrawal agreement is ratified. I suppose that applied to extensions as well, unless the EU specifies otherwise when granting the extension. So I don't understand what it would mean for the EU to offer an extension of two weeks to ratify the treaty, and if the treaty isn't ratified in two weeks a three month extension to hold a general election. It sounds like a three month extension to me.
As far as I can see, the Benn Act doesn't make any provision for conditions. I take it that means that wherever it forces Johnson to accept an extension, it forces him to accept any conditions attached to it.
Movements all within MOE, but perhaps in the direction one might expect?
The 48% combined vote of the Con and Brexit parties is unchanged and remains the highest that YouGov have on record. The GE result continues to hinge on whether the Conservatives can squeeze the BXP vote further.
Personally i'm sick of weak, self centred careerists (oops is there anyone left) - just get Boris to rule out No Deal, call Corbyn's bluff and go for the GE. Nobody wants it (save for the nutters) and surely for Boris this means a few more votes at the ballot boxes. As David Lloyd would say "Get on with the game...... "
How does Boris rule out No Deal - without then being accused by the usual suspects of being a liar???
If we get into the FTA negotiations and the EU play ultra-hardball - and yet we cannot walk away. How does that work? No-one has given me an answer on this.
They know we dont want no deal, we know they know so what's the point in the threat? Let's negotiate like grown-ups(ha-ha). I know what you say but we cannot go on like this surely??
What threat?
Either there is a deal or there is not, no deal isn't a thing it is an absence of a deal that is all.
The only way to take no deal off the table is to ratify a deal, there is no alternative.
The EU do not believe we will walk away with no deal. Keep at the table until a FTA deal is thrashed out. This is no time for brinkmanship - if Boris is not up too it, then somebody else will have to take it up. There are other levers to pull from our side, but Corbyn needs to be neitralized or we'll all turn into effin' Zombies.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
Has Jezza ever lied about dying in a ditch? Has Jezza ever been sacked for lying?
Tbf lying is an asset which is essential to be a functioning party member. I am sure there are those also trained in the qualities of deceit, obfuscation, and duplicitousness. Except for those that are just plain thick and stupid....... fill in your chosen name here.
Corbyn can hardly be sacked when he's never had a job.
I take your point @DavidL and I entriely respect your decisions and sacrifices in respect of your own children.
Nonetheless, I believe overall that the private education system has a persistent and corrosive influence on this country and something needs to change. It cannot be right that disproportionately high percentages of positions of influence in the judiciary, parliament, media, big business etc. are held by the 7%.
I don't disagree but I think that the answer to that is to improve State education to the point that the children there can compete on a more level playing field (in fact any playing fields would be a start).
As a society we do not value education nearly enough. Being a teacher (as my sister is) is a noble profession that should earn far more respect and money than it does. If we are to make a success of our future we need to improve our State schools. It is so many more times more important to our future than marginal things like Brexit. If more people felt like those willing to make the sacrifices I have described we would be in a better place.
I have a theory that the teaching profession lost respect when they stopped being called schoolmasters/schoolmistresses.
I have another theory that the teaching profession gets less respect because everyone remembers having some crap teachers when they were at school (along with good teachers).
I left a former grammar school more than 40 years ago now (gulp) but at that school many teachers still wore gowns when teaching. They expected, earned and received respect. No doubt it was all too authoritarian and illiberal for these days but I admired most of my teachers and got a good education.
I fear that for political reasons teacher unions have sought to deprofessionalise their own profession. I do a fair bit of professional discipline work and for lawyers, accountants, dentists, nurses, doctors and others professional disciplinary boards hold their members to remarkably high standards, higher than the courts would in many cases. I am not sure that the teaching profession does. It seems to tolerate lazy and incompetent members in a way that many other professions wouldn't. That is unfortunate.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
Your man colluded to get a journalist beaten up. What do you call that ?
On Bercow I think he has been very much a curate's egg of a Speaker.
On the positive side he has encouraged the modernisation of the many Parliamentary procedures, he has helped to make the committees more significant which has given alternative career paths for those not minded to bend the knee sufficiently for ministerial or shadow ministerial office, he has helped Parliament be more relevant by allowing far more urgent questions of Ministers and he has insisted on back benchers getting more time and attention at PMQs, for example.
On the negative side he is supremely arrogant, rude, allegedly a bully to his staff, vain, prone to pick favourites and more than a tad greedy. He has used his position to abuse people in a way that is inappropriate and he has been clearly partisan on Brexit. Some of his behaviours have demeaned the Office he holds and called into question whether it can be truly impartial in our febrile times.
Overall I am not at all sorry to see him go but I wouldn't claim he has been a total disaster. I would prefer a lower profile Speaker and think Hoyle will do the job admirably.
On Brexit I think his position has been consistent with his earlier record of allowing Parliament to stand up against the Executive. We should remember this is more prominent since GE2017 because the Executive has been so weak.
Bercow pointed out in the chamber that during the Coalition he helped Eurosceptics to hold a debate on a referendum against the wishes of the Executive.
If he was still Speaker and an incoming Liberal Democrat government revoked Article 50 I'm sure he would act to allow MPs opposed to Revocation to have their say.
It's only because standing up for Parliament has coincided with standing up for Remain over the last few years that the appearance of bias on the subject occurs. I don't believe it's real though.
On Bercow I think he has been very much a curate's egg of a Speaker.
On the positive side he has encouraged the modernisation of the many Parliamentary procedures, he has helped to make the committees more significant which has given alternative career paths for those not minded to bend the knee sufficiently for ministerial or shadow ministerial office, he has helped Parliament be more relevant by allowing far more urgent questions of Ministers and he has insisted on back benchers getting more time and attention at PMQs, for example.
On the negative side he is supremely arrogant, rude, allegedly a bully to his staff, vain, prone to pick favourites and more than a tad greedy. He has used his position to abuse people in a way that is inappropriate and he has been clearly partisan on Brexit. Some of his behaviours have demeaned the Office he holds and called into question whether it can be truly impartial in our febrile times.
Overall I am not at all sorry to see him go but I wouldn't claim he has been a total disaster. I would prefer a lower profile Speaker and think Hoyle will do the job admirably.
He's not been a speaker that anyone can like or approve of.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
Your man colluded to get a journalist beaten up. What do you call that ?
Despicable. The choices we have are sub optimal. But choose we must (unlike those sods in Parliament).
On Bercow I think he has been very much a curate's egg of a Speaker.
On the positive side he has encouraged the modernisation of the many Parliamentary procedures, he has helped to make the committees more significant which has given alternative career paths for those not minded to bend the knee sufficiently for ministerial or shadow ministerial office, he has helped Parliament be more relevant by allowing far more urgent questions of Ministers and he has insisted on back benchers getting more time and attention at PMQs, for example.
On the negative side he is supremely arrogant, rude, allegedly a bully to his staff, vain, prone to pick favourites and more than a tad greedy. He has used his position to abuse people in a way that is inappropriate and he has been clearly partisan on Brexit. Some of his behaviours have demeaned the Office he holds and called into question whether it can be truly impartial in our febrile times.
Overall I am not at all sorry to see him go but I wouldn't claim he has been a total disaster. I would prefer a lower profile Speaker and think Hoyle will do the job admirably.
He's not been a speaker that anyone can like or approve of.
Hoyle can't do the job.
Why do you say that? He does well as a deputy imo.
How would that progress with parliament? Would parliament need to vote to accept the terms or would the Benn Act make it binding on all parties?
According to article 50, we can leave as soon as the withdrawal agreement is ratified. I suppose that applied to extensions as well, unless the EU specifies otherwise when granting the extension. So I don't understand what it would mean for the EU to offer an extension of two weeks to ratify the treaty, and if the treaty isn't ratified in two weeks a three month extension to hold a general election. It sounds like a three month extension to me.
As far as I can see, the Benn Act doesn't make any provision for conditions. I take it that means that wherever it forces Johnson to accept an extension, it forces him to accept any conditions attached to it.
Two separate extensions. Macron could reasonably say "I'm only happy for a 2 week extension to ratify the treaty. If Parliament votes for a General Election then I'd be happy to give a 3 month extension."
So the EU grants a 2 week extension as there's unanimity only on that much and it kicks the can 2 weeks down the road. Under the Benn Act Parliament must vote to accept or not a revised extension, presumably they will accept it to avoid No Deal on Hallowe'en.
Then Parliament faces a dilemma. If Macron sticks to his guns either Parliament votes for the Deal - or revokes - or votes for a GE. As long as Macron is firm Parliament has no other way around Macron. Parliament can compel the PM to act, it has no right to compel the President of the French Republic.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar.
Not by you.
He is not in Johnson's league at all on the liar front. Corbyn was probably less economical with the truth than Theresa May - we recall how many times she denied any intent to call an election in 2017 and how she subsequently quite deliberately misled different groups of Tory backbenchers with contradictory messages.
Now I disagree with two of your claims: 1. Your original claim that Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar. 2. Your further claim that Corbyn is not as much of a liar as Johnson.
On Bercow I think he has been very much a curate's egg of a Speaker.
On the positive side he has encouraged the modernisation of the many Parliamentary procedures, he has helped to make the committees more significant which has given alternative career paths for those not minded to bend the knee sufficiently for ministerial or shadow ministerial office, he has helped Parliament be more relevant by allowing far more urgent questions of Ministers and he has insisted on back benchers getting more time and attention at PMQs, for example.
On the negative side he is supremely arrogant, rude, allegedly a bully to his staff, vain, prone to pick favourites and more than a tad greedy. He has used his position to abuse people in a way that is inappropriate and he has been clearly partisan on Brexit. Some of his behaviours have demeaned the Office he holds and called into question whether it can be truly impartial in our febrile times.
Overall I am not at all sorry to see him go but I wouldn't claim he has been a total disaster. I would prefer a lower profile Speaker and think Hoyle will do the job admirably.
He's not been a speaker that anyone can like or approve of.
Hoyle can't do the job.
Why do you say that? He does well as a deputy imo.
Because he's been so meek whilst his boss trashes convention.
Personally i'm sick of weak, self centred careerists (oops is there anyone left) - just get Boris to rule out No Deal, call Corbyn's bluff and go for the GE. Nobody wants it (save for the nutters) and surely for Boris this means a few more votes at the ballot boxes. As David Lloyd would say "Get on with the game...... "
How does Boris rule out No Deal - without then being accused by the usual suspects of being a liar???
If we get into the FTA negotiations and the EU play ultra-hardball - and yet we cannot walk away. How does that work? No-one has given me an answer on this.
They know we dont want no deal, we know they know so what's the point in the threat? Let's negotiate like grown-ups(ha-ha). I know what you say but we cannot go on like this surely??
What threat?
Either there is a deal or there is not, no deal isn't a thing it is an absence of a deal that is all.
The only way to take no deal off the table is to ratify a deal, there is no alternative.
The EU do not believe we will walk away with no deal. Keep at the table until a FTA deal is thrashed out. This is no time for brinkmanship - if Boris is not up too it, then somebody else will have to take it up. There are other levers to pull from our side, but Corbyn needs to be neitralized or we'll all turn into effin' Zombies.
We aren't at the FTA stage yet, we have a deal either Parliament ratifies the deal or there is no deal but the FTA stage is for the future.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar.
Not by you.
He is not in Johnson's league at all on the liar front. Corbyn was probably less economical with the truth than Theresa May - we recall how many times she denied any intent to call an election in 2017 and how she subsequently quite deliberately misled different groups of Tory backbenchers with contradictory messages.
Now I disagree with two of your claims: 1. Your original claim that Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar. 2. Your further claim that Corbyn is not as much of a liar as Johnson.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
and fox hunting. I suspect Labour's schools policy will be their fox hunting. Popular with the choir but a vote-repellant for many.
... in your bubble. What proportion of the 7% who send their children to private schools would have voted Labour but for this policy? Not many.
What would be the consequences of those 7% transferring to state schools without any extra funding for those schools ?
Plus together with things such as Labour's 'Garden Tax' it looks like an assault on nice middle class lifestyles.
I've got news for you: the middle classes don't send their kids to private schools, only the richest 7% can afford to do that. In my book the richest 7% do not constitute the 'middle'.
Reminds me of Rachel Johnson's ridiculous claim to be 'middle class' in an otherwise polished and witty appearance by her on last week's HIGNFY
In Edinburgh something like 20% of kids go to private schools. It's somewhat unlikely that they are all in the top 7%. I have had kids at a private school in Dundee now for the best part of 20 years (the end is in sight, thank the Lord) . Over that time there has been a real change in the make up of the school from a large domination of those with inherited wealth to many, many more middle class professionals such as teachers. The kids of NHS Doctors now probably form the largest single segment, well paid no doubt but probably only in the top 7% if on enhanced payments.
The parents of those attending the school now are making real sacrifices to have their kids there. They are not statistically in the middle of the earnings bracket but they are not in the elite either.
20% in Edinburgh simply means there are other constituencies that have even less than 7% of kids in private schools. So Labour might get slightly hurt in Edinburgh. How many Edinburgh seats do you think it will lose them? I'll give you a clue: then answer is less than one and more than minus one.
On Bercow I think he has been very much a curate's egg of a Speaker.
On the positive side he has encouraged the modernisation of the many Parliamentary procedures, he has helped to make the committees more significant which has given alternative career paths for those not minded to bend the knee sufficiently for ministerial or shadow ministerial office, he has helped Parliament be more relevant by allowing far more urgent questions of Ministers and he has insisted on back benchers getting more time and attention at PMQs, for example.
On the negative side he is supremely arrogant, rude, allegedly a bully to his staff, vain, prone to pick favourites and more than a tad greedy. He has used his position to abuse people in a way that is inappropriate and he has been clearly partisan on Brexit. Some of his behaviours have demeaned the Office he holds and called into question whether it can be truly impartial in our febrile times.
Overall I am not at all sorry to see him go but I wouldn't claim he has been a total disaster. I would prefer a lower profile Speaker and think Hoyle will do the job admirably.
He's not been a speaker that anyone can like or approve of.
Hoyle can't do the job.
Why do you say that? He does well as a deputy imo.
Because he's been so meek whilst his boss trashes convention.
I think that the key word there is "boss". What do expect a deputy Speaker to do about a Speaker's ruling? He is as bound by it as every other MP.
I take your point @DavidL and I entriely respect your decisions and sacrifices in respect of your own children.
Nonetheless, I believe overall that the private education system has a persistent and corrosive influence on this country and something needs to change. It cannot be right that disproportionately high percentages of positions of influence in the judiciary, parliament, media, big business etc. are held by the 7%.
I don't disagree but I think that the answer to that is to improve State education to the point that the children there can compete on a more level playing field (in fact any playing fields would be a start).
As a society we do not value education nearly enough. Being a teacher (as my sister is) is a noble profession that should earn far more respect and money than it does. If we are to make a success of our future we need to improve our State schools. It is so many more times more important to our future than marginal things like Brexit. If more people felt like those willing to make the sacrifices I have described we would be in a better place.
I have a theory that the teaching profession lost respect when they stopped being called schoolmasters/schoolmistresses.
I have another theory that the teaching profession gets less respect because everyone remembers having some crap teachers when they were at school (along with good teachers).
I left a former grammar school more than 40 years ago now (gulp) but at that school many teachers still wore gowns when teaching. They expected, earned and received respect. No doubt it was all too authoritarian and illiberal for these days but I admired most of my teachers and got a good education.
I fear that for political reasons teacher unions have sought to deprofessionalise their own profession. I do a fair bit of professional discipline work and for lawyers, accountants, dentists, nurses, doctors and others professional disciplinary boards hold their members to remarkably high standards, higher than the courts would in many cases. I am not sure that the teaching profession does. It seems to tolerate lazy and incompetent members in a way that many other professions wouldn't. That is unfortunate.
I left my Boys' Grammar School in mid-1973.There too , gowns were normally worn by masters. The Headmaster, however, effectively abused his position by relying on excessively severe corporal punishment - and thoroughly deserved to be awarded a criminal record.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar.
Not by you.
He is not in Johnson's league at all on the liar front. Corbyn was probably less economical with the truth than Theresa May - we recall how many times she denied any intent to call an election in 2017 and how she subsequently quite deliberately misled different groups of Tory backbenchers with contradictory messages.
Now I disagree with two of your claims: 1. Your original claim that Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar. 2. Your further claim that Corbyn is not as much of a liar as Johnson.
The Lib Dems are already in full-on GE campaigning mode. We have received three LD leaflets in recent weeks, even though our (Conservative-held) constituency could be most charitably described as a "stretch target" for the LDs. Bassetlaw would be a distraction from their wider campaign; I think they will want to make a respectable showing but no more than that.
However, even though I expect the Conservatives to win Bassetlaw at a canter, I suspect the result may flatter to deceive. There are not as many seats like that as Dominic Cummings appears to think there are.
I wonder if John Mann had a personal vote. He was famously grumpy/sturdily independent (take your choice) in the Commons - not nasty, but always gave the impression that he thought that everything was an idiotic shambles. But I'd think him quite trustworthy - not the sort of bloke to forget promises lightly.
I've got news for you: the middle classes don't send their kids to private schools, only the richest 7% can afford to do that. In my book the richest 7% do not constitute the 'middle'.
Reminds me of Rachel Johnson's ridiculous claim to be 'middle class' in an otherwise polished and witty appearance by her on last week's HIGNFY
In Edinburgh something like 20% of kids go to private schools. It's somewhat unlikely that they are all in the top 7%. I have had kids at a private school in Dundee now for the best part of 20 years (the end is in sight, thank the Lord) . Over that time there has been a real change in the make up of the school from a large domination of those with inherited wealth to many, many more middle class professionals such as teachers. The kids of NHS Doctors now probably form the largest single segment, well paid no doubt but probably only in the top 7% if on enhanced payments.
The parents of those attending the school now are making real sacrifices to have their kids there. They are not statistically in the middle of the earnings bracket but they are not in the elite either.
20% in Edinburgh simply means there are other constituencies that have even less than 7% of kids in private schools. So Labour might get slightly hurt in Edinburgh. How many Edinburgh seats do you think it will lose them? I'll give you a clue: then answer is less than one and more than minus one.
So the rightness or wrongness of a policy is to be entirely measured in how many seats it might cost Labour? I mean, really?
On Bercow I think he has been very much a curate's egg of a Speaker.
On the positive side he has encouraged the modernisation of the many Parliamentary procedures, he has helped to make the committees more significant which has given alternative career paths for those not minded to bend the knee sufficiently for ministerial or shadow ministerial office, he has helped Parliament be more relevant by allowing far more urgent questions of Ministers and he has insisted on back benchers getting more time and attention at PMQs, for example.
On the negative side he is supremely arrogant, rude, allegedly a bully to his staff, vain, prone to pick favourites and more than a tad greedy. He has used his position to abuse people in a way that is inappropriate and he has been clearly partisan on Brexit. Some of his behaviours have demeaned the Office he holds and called into question whether it can be truly impartial in our febrile times.
Overall I am not at all sorry to see him go but I wouldn't claim he has been a total disaster. I would prefer a lower profile Speaker and think Hoyle will do the job admirably.
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
I think Boris beats Jezza hands down on the lying front tbf.
Has Boris ever lied about laying a wreath for a planner of the murder of an Israeli Olympic team?
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
Your man colluded to get a journalist beaten up. What do you call that ?
Despicable. The choices we have are sub optimal. But choose we must (unlike those sods in Parliament).
"Theresa May was a 'terrible campaigner' whose 'inflexible and introverted character' caused the Tories to lose their majority at the 2017 election, a new biography claims"
A Prime Minister’s weaknesses seem to be known at the outset, and they are inevitably the final cause of their downfall, too.
We knew May was inflexible, introverted, secretive, a control freak; we knew Cameron was facile, solipsistic, intellectually lazy; we knew Blair was narcissistic, glib, and unscrupulous.
We know Boris’s character is worse - perhaps far worse - than any of the above, too. The only question is exactly how this plays out.
Boris is authentically malign in way that May (gurning weirdo), Cameron (big shiny head but nothing else) and Blair (have you been mis-sold a war in Iraq?) never were. Brexit and its associated bollocks are irrelevant compared to the moral, political and social necessity of removing him from office by any means.
Amazing how upset people become when you point out that enabling a racist like Boris isn't really on. And in that fact is a clue. We live in a time of deep tribalism, and Conservatives on here simply don't give a fuck about Boris's racism, his shutting down of parliament, his lying, his untrustworthiness in both his professional and person life. They don't care that he has no standards because they too have no standards. Oh sure, they pretend to care about Labour antisemitism but really it's just a stick to beat the other tribe with.
We won't really get a change in our politics until the dissembling hypocrites who prop up this foul rag of a man either mend their ways or die off. I've lost hope in them mending their ways; that's why I've decided to emigrate.
Personally i'm sick of weak, self centred careerists (oops is there anyone left) - just get Boris to rule out No Deal, call Corbyn's bluff and go for the GE. Nobody wants it (save for the nutters) and surely for Boris this means a few more votes at the ballot boxes. As David Lloyd would say "Get on with the game...... "
How does Boris rule out No Deal - without then being accused by the usual suspects of being a liar???
If we get into the FTA negotiations and the EU play ultra-hardball - and yet we cannot walk away. How does that work? No-one has given me an answer on this.
They know we dont want no deal, we know they know so what's the point in the threat? Let's negotiate like grown-ups(ha-ha). I know what you say but we cannot go on like this surely??
What threat?
Either there is a deal or there is not, no deal isn't a thing it is an absence of a deal that is all.
The only way to take no deal off the table is to ratify a deal, there is no alternative.
The EU do not believe we will walk away with no deal. Keep at the table until a FTA deal is thrashed out. This is no time for brinkmanship - if Boris is not up too it, then somebody else will have to take it up. There are other levers to pull from our side, but Corbyn needs to be neitralized or we'll all turn into effin' Zombies.
We aren't at the FTA stage yet, we have a deal either Parliament ratifies the deal or there is no deal but the FTA stage is for the future.
You are still clinging to No Deal as a bargaining tool. In my eyes that is history. I referred to calling Corbyn's bluff and recognizing that fact.(Granted i dont know legally how this can be done) Once everyone can get over that its down to statemanslike negotiations between 2 supposed advanced nations in the FTA. How else do we extract ourselves from this cycle of madness?
How long does a Labour leadership contest need to last? That’s one of the metrics we need to start thinking about.
Agreed. That any Labour supporter can want to go into an election with someone lagging 15 points in the polls either can't read or deliberately wants to lose. Corbyn must resign in the very near future or try to delay the election until 2022 when old age might intervene and resignation might be forced on him
Today's Yougov shows a 13% Tory lead - compared with the 24% they enjoyed when May called the election in May 2017.
I'm not sure what point you're making. Not to trust polls? Not to trust polls which involve Corbyn? A belief that a four week campaign can turn around a 13% deficit? I'd like Johnson's Tories to lose as much as you would but the overwhelming evidence points in the opposite direction. What makes it worse is that there is every chance that with a leader other than Corbyn they would be doing very much better
We aren't at the FTA stage yet, we have a deal either Parliament ratifies the deal or there is no deal but the FTA stage is for the future.
The problem is there is this suspicion that those around Johnson are going to use the transition period (only to 31/12/20) as a period to do nothing except perhaps win a GE with a big majority.
For all that we have been led to believe a comprehensive FTA with the EU will be easy, the truth is this is yet another of the illusions or delusions which have dominated political discourse on all sides.
A comprehensive FTA will take time and of course it may not be complete by the end of 2020 and those who question the motivation of those behind Johnson take the view the UK will exit transition (and the EU) without an FTA with the EU as a deliberate act meaning in effect we leave without a Deal just as we would do if we left without a WA.
Corbyn may be using this as cover for avoiding a GE - in his position I would as well - but there's a valid point among the obfuscation. Would Johnson seek to extend transition if more time were needed to conclude an FTA or a trade deal with the EU or would he just let us fall out without any kind of trade deal and go to WTO rules?
I don't trust Johnson and I don't believe him. He always says what he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear so when he maintains he wants to leave with a Deal I'm not convinced and I prefer some legally watertight conditions to support what he has just told me.
So the rightness or wrongness of a policy is to be entirely measured in how many seats it might cost Labour? I mean, really?
No, not at all. Although I quite like policies that damage Labour because I ultimately want them off the political map for good. No, I was picking up the theme earlier in the thread that private schools would be "their foxhunting". I can see the point, but I don't think it's true. And I was trying to demonstrate that the "Edinburgh 20% private schools" probably doesn't hurt Labour at all, unless a miracle happens and they lose Morningside. Which will only happen if Murray gets deselected (yes, that could happen).
If we get into the FTA negotiations and the EU play ultra-hardball - and yet we cannot walk away. How does that work? No-one has given me an answer on this.
That is exactly why (along with the border in the Irish Sea) the Boris deal is so much, much worse than Theresa May's, and is why the EU accepted Boris's U-turn with such alacrity. They are not stupid, they could immediately see that it is miles better for them (which is unsurprising, given that it was essentially their opening offer to Theresa May).
The reason is, as you point out, that under the Boris deal we'll be left with nowhere to go in the FTA negotiations; no responsible government, not even this not-very-responsible one, is going to be able to view crashing out to WTO terms at the end of the transition period with any more equanimity than even Boris viewed crashing out next week. Under Theresa May's deal, we had a superb fallback position, which was to slide into the backstop. That would have given us no cliff-edge, and nearly all of the economic advantages of remaining EU members without having to pay a penny in fees and without the non-trade-related legal constraints, which the EU would have absolutely hated as it was the ultimate cherry-picking. It was a brilliant piece of negotiation by the UK team, and it's no wonder that several EU countries thought it was too generous to us.
Alas, now thrown away. I dare say we will continue the habit of repeatedly making bad decisions, which started with the rejection of Cameron's renegotiated terms and has been downhill from there.
I've read that Tory strategists are surprised by how well Johnson is polling with blue collar workers in the North/Midlands. May be a false rumour, but fits a general feeling.
I had some (a lot) of reservations about how Johnson would go down with voters who perhaps weren't familiar with him which is pretty much everywhere outside London.
I thought his slightly pompous, rambling, upper class buffoon act would go down like a cup of cold sick but the opposite seems to be true.
I think the younger generation find him funny and the older generation find him a breath of fresh air from typical politicians.
Which is fine up until the point the kids don't find him funny anymore and the older crowd realise that quirky doesn't always mean different.
I’m unconvinced. Just as Trump would have lost against anyone but Hillary, Johnson is unappealing against anyone but Corbyn.
But he is facing Corbyn, and the idiot membership of Labour can't see what a gift that is to the conservatives.
I think there is an over tendency for media to go vox popping in big leave areas during day and talking to old people and shop/stall owners to create that feeling. On here yesterday people laughed at suggestion Barnsley is Tory gain, but look at the vox popping and size of leave.
Bolstered by our dear HY, armed with irresistible polling and ONS gains.
But against it is what happened in Peterborough in a real election?
Before Boris was PM, the Cons had just got whacked in the Euros and BXP riding high. The Leave vote was split in Peterborough I'd say
How would that progress with parliament? Would parliament need to vote to accept the terms or would the Benn Act make it binding on all parties?
According to article 50, we can leave as soon as the withdrawal agreement is ratified. I suppose that applied to extensions as well, unless the EU specifies otherwise when granting the extension. So I don't understand what it would mean for the EU to offer an extension of two weeks to ratify the treaty, and if the treaty isn't ratified in two weeks a three month extension to hold a general election. It sounds like a three month extension to me.
As far as I can see, the Benn Act doesn't make any provision for conditions. I take it that means that wherever it forces Johnson to accept an extension, it forces him to accept any conditions attached to it.
Two separate extensions. Macron could reasonably say "I'm only happy for a 2 week extension to ratify the treaty. If Parliament votes for a General Election then I'd be happy to give a 3 month extension."
So the EU grants a 2 week extension as there's unanimity only on that much and it kicks the can 2 weeks down the road. Under the Benn Act Parliament must vote to accept or not a revised extension, presumably they will accept it to avoid No Deal on Hallowe'en.
Then Parliament faces a dilemma. If Macron sticks to his guns either Parliament votes for the Deal - or revokes - or votes for a GE. As long as Macron is firm Parliament has no other way around Macron. Parliament can compel the PM to act, it has no right to compel the President of the French Republic.
Yes, if the EU grants a two week extension and says that's the end unless parliament has agreed a general election, that would change thigs. And I could see the virtue of that.
Maybe that's what Sunny Jim meant in the comment I was replying to, but if so it wasn't clear to me.
So the rightness or wrongness of a policy is to be entirely measured in how many seats it might cost Labour? I mean, really?
No, not at all. Although I quite like policies that damage Labour because I ultimately want them off the political map for good. No, I was picking up the theme earlier in the thread that private schools would be "their foxhunting". I can see the point, but I don't think it's true. And I was trying to demonstrate that the "Edinburgh 20% private schools" probably doesn't hurt Labour at all, unless a miracle happens and they lose Morningside. Which will only happen if Murray gets deselected (yes, that could happen).
I think Murray saw off the Red hordes? Not to say that they wouldn't try again, even if they were comprehensively gubbed this time.
If Labour receive the shellacking I am expecting under Corbyn, then it will most likely take more than one more GE to pull back from the low number of MPs.
So the rightness or wrongness of a policy is to be entirely measured in how many seats it might cost Labour? I mean, really?
No, not at all. Although I quite like policies that damage Labour because I ultimately want them off the political map for good. No, I was picking up the theme earlier in the thread that private schools would be "their foxhunting". I can see the point, but I don't think it's true. And I was trying to demonstrate that the "Edinburgh 20% private schools" probably doesn't hurt Labour at all, unless a miracle happens and they lose Morningside. Which will only happen if Murray gets deselected (yes, that could happen).
If Labour receive the shellacking I am expecting under Corbyn, then it will most likely take more than one more GE to pull back from the low number of MPs.
Yep, like Cameron in 2010 they would be too far behind to hope for a majority government even with a major swing in their direction once they have returned to the road of credibility.
That really will destroy the Union. At least as far as NI is concerned as large numbers of English will be pushing for a Border Poll at the earliest opportunity.
Yes, if the EU grants a two week extension and says that's the end unless parliament has agreed a general election, that would change thigs. And I could see the virtue of that.
Maybe that's what Sunny Jim meant in the comment I was replying to, but if so it wasn't clear to me.
It made sense in my head but reading back I can see why it perhaps doesn't.
What I meant was the extensions are sequential so parliament gets two bites at the cherry so to speak.
a) The initial extension is for 2 weeks to ratify the deal as it is.
b) If ratification fails then a 3 month extension would kick in dependent on a GE being held. If parliament is unwilling to hold a GE then we would exit at the end of the initial 2 week treaty extension.
The EU would be being more than accommodating in providing time for both realistic outcomes that are available to parliament.
How long does a Labour leadership contest need to last? That’s one of the metrics we need to start thinking about.
Agreed. That any Labour supporter can want to go into an election with someone lagging 15 points in the polls either can't read or deliberately wants to lose. Corbyn must resign in the very near future or try to delay the election until 2022 when old age might intervene and resignation might be forced on him
Today's Yougov shows a 13% Tory lead - compared with the 24% they enjoyed when May called the election in May 2017.
I'm not sure what point you're making. Not to trust polls? Not to trust polls which involve Corbyn? A belief that a four week campaign can turn around a 13% deficit? I'd like Johnson's Tories to lose as much as you would but the overwhelming evidence points in the opposite direction. What makes it worse is that there is every chance that with a leader other than Corbyn they would be doing very much better
A few points there. It would be a 5/6 week campaign - there have to be 5 weeks between Dissolution and Polling Day. In 2017 we saw polls giving the Tories a 24% lead six weeks prior to the election - yet on Polling Day the Tory lead was just 2.4%. On that basis, 13% is quite modest - moreover some polls only show a 4%/5% Tory lead.
If Labour receive the shellacking I am expecting under Corbyn, then it will most likely take more than one more GE to pull back from the low number of MPs.
Bassetlaw is potentially very interesting. Labour since 1929, typically with over 50% of the vote, but Tories never totally out of it (typically over 30%) and Lib Dems and predecessors never anywhere even in good years.
The Conservative positioning for the next election is "We may lose some ground to the Lib Dems and SNP, but we'll win a load of red v blue places that have been out of our grasp before but where Brexit has brought into play".
That's exactly what Bassetlaw is. So the question is will they get it, or will Labour know exactly where the 50%+1 of the electorate live, and flush them out and to the polling stations?
My view continues to be that Labour will do it in Bassetlaw and elsewhere. They are past masters of the backs-to-the-wall fight, twisting the arms of their reluctant voters, and frogmarching them from the council estate to the polling booth when it really matters. Even with Corbyn's poor leadership, I suspect when push comes to shove they've still got that. If not, they are in huge trouble.
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar.
Not by you.
He is not in Johnson's league at all on the liar front. Corbyn was probably less economical with the truth than Theresa May - we recall how many times she denied any intent to call an election in 2017 and how she subsequently quite deliberately misled different groups of Tory backbenchers with contradictory messages.
Now I disagree with two of your claims: 1. Your original claim that Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar. 2. Your further claim that Corbyn is not as much of a liar as Johnson.
I doubt that your view is widely shared.
YouGov September 2019 Polling on Corbyn 21% trustworthy, 60% untrustworthy 29% honest, 47% dishonest
That deals with claim 1 on perceptions of Corbyn by the public.
Regarding claim 2, which is about the scale of Corbyn's lying, I appreciate that it is a very high bar to reach Johnson's level. I could pointlessly spend all afternoon bashing my head against a brick wall with you citing numerous examples with you and I am not going to waste my time doing that.
So here's just one mega example. Corbyn has been telling total porkies such that he would have us believe that he underwent a Damascene conversion about his attitude to the EU that just happened to coincide with the moment that he stood for the Labour leadership. A truly astounding example of political deception of huge importance on the issue that is completely dominated British politics for the past 4 years.
I won't be continuing this argument further. You are welcome to have the last word and convince yourself by my non-response that I no longer consider that you are 100% wrong.
Bassetlaw is potentially very interesting. Labour since 1929, typically with over 50% of the vote, but Tories never totally out of it (typically over 30%) and Lib Dems and predecessors never anywhere even in good years.
The Conservative positioning for the next election is "We may lose some ground to the Lib Dems and SNP, but we'll win a load of red v blue places that have been out of our grasp before but where Brexit has brought into play".
That's exactly what Bassetlaw is. So the question is will they get it, or will Labour know exactly where the 50%+1 of the electorate live, and flush them out and to the polling stations?
My view continues to be that Labour will do it in Bassetlaw and elsewhere. They are past masters of the backs-to-the-wall fight, twisting the arms of their reluctant voters, and frogmarching them from the council estate to the polling booth when it really matters. Even with Corbyn's poor leadership, I suspect when push comes to shove they've still got that. If not, they are in huge trouble.
Labour since 1935 - having lost the seat to National Labour in 1931!
Well, it has been 3 years and no one has come up with a single way out of the EU that deals with NI issue, other than stuff that is a total red line to the so-called Conservative party, like staying in the SM.
So the rightness or wrongness of a policy is to be entirely measured in how many seats it might cost Labour? I mean, really?
No, not at all. Although I quite like policies that damage Labour because I ultimately want them off the political map for good. No, I was picking up the theme earlier in the thread that private schools would be "their foxhunting". I can see the point, but I don't think it's true. And I was trying to demonstrate that the "Edinburgh 20% private schools" probably doesn't hurt Labour at all, unless a miracle happens and they lose Morningside. Which will only happen if Murray gets deselected (yes, that could happen).
I think Murray saw off the Red hordes? Not to say that they wouldn't try again, even if they were comprehensively gubbed this time.
Ok, I missed that. I'm even surer then, Morningside Murray is indestructible.
If Labour receive the shellacking I am expecting under Corbyn, then it will most likely take more than one more GE to pull back from the low number of MPs.
Depends on whether it happens and the scale of it if it does.
But, even if they take a hard beating, I am not sure about the time for the comeback.
The Tories might win a lot of traditional Labour seats this time (I'm sceptical, but they might). In five years time, we could quite easily be in more "normal" times. In those circumstances, those seats will be quite vulnerable.
The Bassetlaws of this world might go Tory now on the basis people buy "get Brexit done" and that they don't like Corbyn. But 2024/5 won't be a Brexit election and won't be a Corbyn election... they've voted Labour since the 1920s, so might it not very possibly be a flash in the pan for the Tories? Seems to me it could actually swing back quite easily.
It was the disastrous social care policy wot lost it.
And student debt.
Plus unaffordable housing.
Yes. If the Tories announced big changes on building houses and reducing student debt, genuinely moving the needle changes, they would reduce Corbyn's lead among the young substantially.
I doubt that many would believe him. He is simply not trusted.
Corbyn is? lol
Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar.
Not by you.
Now I disagree with two of your claims: 1. Your original claim that Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar. 2. Your further claim that Corbyn is not as much of a liar as Johnson.
I doubt that your view is widely shared.
YouGov September 2019 Polling on Corbyn 21% trustworthy, 60% untrustworthy 29% honest, 47% dishonest
That deals with claim 1 on perceptions of Corbyn by the public.
Regarding claim 2, which is about the scale of Corbyn's lying, I appreciate that it is a very high bar to reach Johnson's level. I could pointlessly spend all afternoon bashing my head against a brick wall with you citing numerous examples with you and I am not going to waste my time doing that.
So here's just one mega example. Corbyn has been telling total porkies such that he would have us believe that he underwent a Damascene conversion about his attitude to the EU that just happened to coincide with the moment that he stood for the Labour leadership. A truly astounding example of political deception of huge importance on the issue that is completely dominated British politics for the past 4 years.
I won't be continuing this argument further. You are welcome to have the last word and convince yourself by my non-response that I no longer consider that you are 100% wrong.
I don't think Corbyn is today claiming to be an ardent pro- European . As Nick Palmer has suggested a few times, it is not an issue that is of great interest to him. Quite a contrast to the likes of Neil Kinnock who has made a fortune from his involvement with the EU - despite having been a committed Anti- Marketeer in the 1975 Referendum campaign.
How would that progress with parliament? Would parliament need to vote to accept the terms or would the Benn Act make it binding on all parties?
According to article 50, we can leave as soon as the withdrawal agreement is ratified. I suppose that applied to extensions as well, unless the EU specifies otherwise when granting the extension. So I don't understand what it would mean for the EU to offer an extension of two weeks to ratify the treaty, and if the treaty isn't ratified in two weeks a three month extension to hold a general election. It sounds like a three month extension to me.
As far as I can see, the Benn Act doesn't make any provision for conditions. I take it that means that wherever it forces Johnson to accept an extension, it forces him to accept any conditions attached to it.
Two separate extensions. Macron could reasonably say "I'm only happy for a 2 week extension to ratify the treaty. If Parliament votes for a General Election then I'd be happy to give a 3 month extension."
So the EU grants a 2 week extension as there's unanimity only on that much and it kicks the can 2 weeks down the road. Under the Benn Act Parliament must vote to accept or not a revised extension, presumably they will accept it to avoid No Deal on Hallowe'en.
Then Parliament faces a dilemma. If Macron sticks to his guns either Parliament votes for the Deal - or revokes - or votes for a GE. As long as Macron is firm Parliament has no other way around Macron. Parliament can compel the PM to act, it has no right to compel the President of the French Republic.
Yes, if the EU grants a two week extension and says that's the end unless parliament has agreed a general election, that would change thigs. And I could see the virtue of that.
Maybe that's what Sunny Jim meant in the comment I was replying to, but if so it wasn't clear to me.
That forces the issue for sure. The EU gets an agreement on the Boris Argeement by 15th November from the existing Parliament - or a new Govt. formed that agrees the Boris Deal by 31st January. Thems your options, Remainers.....
If Labour receive the shellacking I am expecting under Corbyn, then it will most likely take more than one more GE to pull back from the low number of MPs.
Depends on whether it happens and the scale of it if it does.
But, even if they take a hard beating, I am not sure about the time for the comeback.
The Tories might win a lot of traditional Labour seats this time (I'm sceptical, but they might). In five years time, we could quite easily be in more "normal" times. In those circumstances, those seats will be quite vulnerable.
The Bassetlaws of this world might go Tory now on the basis people buy "get Brexit done" and that they don't like Corbyn. But 2024/5 won't be a Brexit election and won't be a Corbyn election... they've voted Labour since the 1920s, so might it not very possibly be a flash in the pan for the Tories? Seems to me it could actually swing back quite easily.
It wont be Corbyn. But it may well be Pidcock or Bailey.
How would that progress with parliament? Would parliament need to vote to accept the terms or would the Benn Act make it binding on all parties?
According to article 50, we can leave as soon as the withdrawal agreement is ratified. I suppose that applied to extensions as well, unless the EU specifies otherwise when granting the extension. So I don't understand what it would mean for the EU to offer an extension of two weeks to ratify the treaty, and if the treaty isn't ratified in two weeks a three month extension to hold a general election. It sounds like a three month extension to me.
As far as I can see, the Benn Act doesn't make any provision for conditions. I take it that means that wherever it forces Johnson to accept an extension, it forces him to accept any conditions attached to it.
Two separate extensions. Macron could reasonably say "I'm only happy for a 2 week extension to ratify the treaty. If Parliament votes for a General Election then I'd be happy to give a 3 month extension."
So the EU grants a 2 week extension as there's unanimity only on that much and it kicks the can 2 weeks down the road. Under the Benn Act Parliament must vote to accept or not a revised extension, presumably they will accept it to avoid No Deal on Hallowe'en.
Then Parliament faces a dilemma. If Macron sticks to his guns either Parliament votes for the Deal - or revokes - or votes for a GE. As long as Macron is firm Parliament has no other way around Macron. Parliament can compel the PM to act, it has no right to compel the President of the French Republic.
Yes, if the EU grants a two week extension and says that's the end unless parliament has agreed a general election, that would change thigs. And I could see the virtue of that.
Maybe that's what Sunny Jim meant in the comment I was replying to, but if so it wasn't clear to me.
That forces the issue for sure. The EU gets an agreement on the Boris Argeement by 15th November from the existing Parliament - or a new Govt. formed that agrees the Boris Deal by 31st January. Thems your options, Remainers.....
Not quite; Revoke is still there. Always assuming of course that the rest of the EU could stand having Nigel 'the Rudest Man in Europe' Farage, and Ann 'Mad Witch' Widdecombe still in the Parliament.
That is exactly why (along with the border in the Irish Sea) the Boris deal is so much, much worse than Theresa May's, and is why the EU accepted Boris's U-turn with such alacrity. They are not stupid, they could immediately see that it is miles better for them (which is unsurprising, given that it was essentially their opening offer to Theresa May).
The reason is, as you point out, that under the Boris deal we'll be left with nowhere to go in the FTA negotiations; no responsible government, not even this not-very-responsible one, is going to be able to view crashing out to WTO terms at the end of the transition period with any more equanimity than even Boris viewed crashing out next week. Under Theresa May's deal, we had a superb fallback position, which was to slide into the backstop. That would have given us no cliff-edge, and nearly all of the economic advantages of remaining EU members without having to pay a penny in fees and without the non-trade-related legal constraints, which the EU would have absolutely hated as it was the ultimate cherry-picking. It was a brilliant piece of negotiation by the UK team, and it's no wonder that several EU countries thought it was too generous to us.
Alas, now thrown away. I dare say we will continue the habit of repeatedly making bad decisions, which started with the rejection of Cameron's renegotiated terms and has been downhill from there.
Excellent post, Richard.
I suspect Johnson came into office believing a WA based on the Brady Amendment was the only way forward and I think he thought he could carry a WA through the Commons which was broadly the same as the Brady Amendment.
Johnson's WA is now unravelling at speed and is, as you say, more detrimental to the interests of the UK than May's. I'm picking up plenty of commentary on commitments to workers' rights and environmental protection which, to her credit, May agreed to support but which Johnson's text has left ambiguous and is clearly paving the way for an assault on those protections and standards were he to get his majority.
The speed at which the EU acceded to Johnson told me immediately we had conceded on a huge range of issues notably the backstop. The irony of Johnson talking about "surrender" in the Commons when he and his negotiators have surrendered away Britain's future interests won't be lost on voters as the full details of the WA come out.
The price of a GWh at the latest windfarm off Yorkshire is less than half of the agreed rate for Hinckley Point. Wind still struggles to compete with gas but it is clearly getting there.
I think it's what the Conservative party secretly wants too. Nothing could better than fighting the next election on a nationalist betrayal platform against the backdrop of an economic bounce. Far easier than the horrendous complexity of implementing a Brexit deal and being blamed for every negative impact that results.
The candidate shortlist includes a pair of refugees from Ashfield, and a previous losing candidate from somewhere in Leicestershire.
One of the Ashfield two - apparently the favourite - describes himself as "Deputy Leader of the Labour Group" on Ashfield Council, when there are exactly two Labour Councillors on the Council.
He is also the chap who appeared in the Daily Mail next to Ed Milliband wearing a "dance on Thatcher's Grave" teeshirt.
Will that play well in Bassetlaw?
Bassetlaw is exactly the sort of constituency the Tories need to be challenging in to get a majority government. Labour leave, with a resurgent Lib Dem vote splitting the remain alliance.
I actually think the Tories stand to do well in such seats. If they can’t do well here they’re going to have a disasterous election all in all, as they won’t be able to mitigate the potential damage the LDs could deal in the south and the SNP challenge in Scotland.
I hope the LibDems stand back in Bassetlaw. They don't have a hope. It's a waste of effort and money. It might split the Remain vote and let the Tories through. It would be a rehearsal for a more widespread similar strategy in the GE.
I expect Leon Duveen will run but the Lib Dem organisation up here is non existant. Much stronger across the border in Derbyshire. I'll let you know if I think there are footsoldiers in the mix.
That is exactly why (along with the border in the Irish Sea) the Boris deal is so much, much worse than Theresa May's, and is why the EU accepted Boris's U-turn with such alacrity. They are not stupid, they could immediately see that it is miles better for them (which is unsurprising, given that it was essentially their opening offer to Theresa May).
The reason is, as you point out, that under the Boris deal we'll be left with nowhere to go in the FTA negotiations; no responsible government, not even this not-very-responsible one, is going to be able to view crashing out to WTO terms at the end of the transition period with any more equanimity than even Boris viewed crashing out next week. Under Theresa May's deal, we had a superb fallback position, which was to slide into the backstop. That would have given us no cliff-edge, and nearly all of the economic advantages of remaining EU members without having to pay a penny in fees and without the non-trade-related legal constraints, which the EU would have absolutely hated as it was the ultimate cherry-picking. It was a brilliant piece of negotiation by the UK team, and it's no wonder that several EU countries thought it was too generous to us.
Alas, now thrown away. I dare say we will continue the habit of repeatedly making bad decisions, which started with the rejection of Cameron's renegotiated terms and has been downhill from there.
Excellent post, Richard.
I suspect Johnson came into office believing a WA based on the Brady Amendment was the only way forward and I think he thought he could carry a WA through the Commons which was broadly the same as the Brady Amendment.
Johnson's WA is now unravelling at speed and is, as you say, more detrimental to the interests of the UK than May's. I'm picking up plenty of commentary on commitments to workers' rights and environmental protection which, to her credit, May agreed to support but which Johnson's text has left ambiguous and is clearly paving the way for an assault on those protections and standards were he to get his majority.
The speed at which the EU acceded to Johnson told me immediately we had conceded on a huge range of issues notably the backstop. The irony of Johnson talking about "surrender" in the Commons when he and his negotiators have surrendered away Britain's future interests won't be lost on voters as the full details of the WA come out.
Those incompetent twats that we call MPs screwed up the chance of May's deal by voting it down 3x. The deal on the table now is Boris's and it is still better than no deal so we have to take it.
Comments
Nonetheless, I believe overall that the private education system has a persistent and corrosive influence on this country and something needs to change. It cannot be right that disproportionately high percentages of positions of influence in the judiciary, parliament, media, big business etc. are held by the 7%.
I know what you say but we cannot go on like this surely??
EG if Macron were to say "No to January, I will agree to 1 week only to ratify the deal or ramp up preparations for no deal."
Nope.
You want malign - Exhibit A, m'lud, Jeremy Corbyn.
On the positive side he has encouraged the modernisation of the many Parliamentary procedures, he has helped to make the committees more significant which has given alternative career paths for those not minded to bend the knee sufficiently for ministerial or shadow ministerial office, he has helped Parliament be more relevant by allowing far more urgent questions of Ministers and he has insisted on back benchers getting more time and attention at PMQs, for example.
On the negative side he is supremely arrogant, rude, allegedly a bully to his staff, vain, prone to pick favourites and more than a tad greedy. He has used his position to abuse people in a way that is inappropriate and he has been clearly partisan on Brexit. Some of his behaviours have demeaned the Office he holds and called into question whether it can be truly impartial in our febrile times.
Overall I am not at all sorry to see him go but I wouldn't claim he has been a total disaster. I would prefer a lower profile Speaker and think Hoyle will do the job admirably.
A week ago on Friday Boris was on a high having secured a deal and had good hopes of passing it through the HoC.
Now things look quite tricky. The week ahead may be another long one!
How many of that 'elite' went to a few posh private schools or a few posh state schools followed by Oxbridge.
And even for Oxford and Cambridge it narrows down to a few courses.
After all when was the last time anyone complained about an Eton and Oxford educated engineer ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKej2FYrKSA
Has Jezza ever been sacked for lying?
As a society we do not value education nearly enough. Being a teacher (as my sister is) is a noble profession that should earn far more respect and money than it does. If we are to make a success of our future we need to improve our State schools. It is so many more times more important to our future than marginal things like Brexit. If more people felt like those willing to make the sacrifices I have described we would be in a better place.
He was photographed holding a wreath in the cemetery where an alleged terrorist was buried. He says he was commemorating the Sabra/Shatila massacre. Whether he was involved in the laying of a wreath on the alleged terrorist's grave, if so whether he realised what was alleged against the man, and whether the allegations against the man were true, is all rather uncertain, from what I've read.
It's very easy to make this kind of lazy accusation against a political opponent. "Corbyn is an antisemite" is another one. I don't believe Corbyn is actually antisemitic himself. Whether the party under his leadership has dealt effectively with antisemtism on the part of others is another question. It should be obvious that it's a different question. But in the atmosphere of today's political discourse, it seems the distinction is too subtle even to be mentioned.
Of course drinkers of the Boris-Aid do seem to lose the sight of one eye, just like Corbyn's brainless disciples.
Either there is a deal or there is not, no deal isn't a thing it is an absence of a deal that is all.
The only way to take no deal off the table is to ratify a deal, there is no alternative.
Bercow pointed out in the chamber that during the Coalition he helped Eurosceptics to hold a debate on a referendum against the wishes of the Executive.
If he was still Speaker and an incoming Liberal Democrat government revoked Article 50 I'm sure he would act to allow MPs opposed to Revocation to have their say.
It's only because standing up for Parliament has coincided with standing up for Remain over the last few years that the appearance of bias on the subject occurs. I don't believe it's real though.
He can be a dreadful bully, unfortunately.
I have another theory that the teaching profession gets less respect because everyone remembers having some crap teachers when they were at school (along with good teachers).
It does matter if they say it is the final extension though. It changes the political environment in the UK, and gives politicians cover to vote for the deal, even if its clearly a lie (or to be charitable a threat they wont carry out).
Except for those that are just plain thick and stupid....... fill in your chosen name here.
1. 2 weeks to ratify the treaty as it stands
if unsuccessful followed by,
2. 3 months to hold a GE
How would that progress with parliament? Would parliament need to vote to accept the terms or would the Benn Act make it binding on all parties?
As far as I can see, the Benn Act doesn't make any provision for conditions. I take it that means that wherever it forces Johnson to accept an extension, it forces him to accept any conditions attached to it.
I fear that for political reasons teacher unions have sought to deprofessionalise their own profession. I do a fair bit of professional discipline work and for lawyers, accountants, dentists, nurses, doctors and others professional disciplinary boards hold their members to remarkably high standards, higher than the courts would in many cases. I am not sure that the teaching profession does. It seems to tolerate lazy and incompetent members in a way that many other professions wouldn't. That is unfortunate.
What do you call that ?
Hoyle can't do the job.
So the EU grants a 2 week extension as there's unanimity only on that much and it kicks the can 2 weeks down the road. Under the Benn Act Parliament must vote to accept or not a revised extension, presumably they will accept it to avoid No Deal on Hallowe'en.
Then Parliament faces a dilemma. If Macron sticks to his guns either Parliament votes for the Deal - or revokes - or votes for a GE. As long as Macron is firm Parliament has no other way around Macron. Parliament can compel the PM to act, it has no right to compel the President of the French Republic.
1. Your original claim that Corbyn is not perceived as a compulsive liar.
2. Your further claim that Corbyn is not as much of a liar as Johnson.
Hoyle can't do the job.
Why do you say that? He does well as a deputy imo.
Because he's been so meek whilst his boss trashes convention.
I think that the key word there is "boss". What do expect a deputy Speaker to do about a Speaker's ruling? He is as bound by it as every other MP.
Because he's been so meek whilst his boss trashes convention.
Leavers have all the muskets in this country
Oh sure, they pretend to care about Labour antisemitism but really it's just a stick to beat the other tribe with.
We won't really get a change in our politics until the dissembling hypocrites who prop up this foul rag of a man either mend their ways or die off. I've lost hope in them mending their ways; that's why I've decided to emigrate.
I referred to calling Corbyn's bluff and recognizing that fact.(Granted i dont know legally how this can be done) Once everyone can get over that its down to statemanslike negotiations between 2 supposed advanced nations in the FTA.
How else do we extract ourselves from this cycle of madness?
For all that we have been led to believe a comprehensive FTA with the EU will be easy, the truth is this is yet another of the illusions or delusions which have dominated political discourse on all sides.
A comprehensive FTA will take time and of course it may not be complete by the end of 2020 and those who question the motivation of those behind Johnson take the view the UK will exit transition (and the EU) without an FTA with the EU as a deliberate act meaning in effect we leave without a Deal just as we would do if we left without a WA.
Corbyn may be using this as cover for avoiding a GE - in his position I would as well - but there's a valid point among the obfuscation. Would Johnson seek to extend transition if more time were needed to conclude an FTA or a trade deal with the EU or would he just let us fall out without any kind of trade deal and go to WTO rules?
I don't trust Johnson and I don't believe him. He always says what he thinks the audience in front of him wants to hear so when he maintains he wants to leave with a Deal I'm not convinced and I prefer some legally watertight conditions to support what he has just told me.
No, I was picking up the theme earlier in the thread that private schools would be "their foxhunting". I can see the point, but I don't think it's true. And I was trying to demonstrate that the "Edinburgh 20% private schools" probably doesn't hurt Labour at all, unless a miracle happens and they lose Morningside. Which will only happen if Murray gets deselected (yes, that could happen).
The reason is, as you point out, that under the Boris deal we'll be left with nowhere to go in the FTA negotiations; no responsible government, not even this not-very-responsible one, is going to be able to view crashing out to WTO terms at the end of the transition period with any more equanimity than even Boris viewed crashing out next week. Under Theresa May's deal, we had a superb fallback position, which was to slide into the backstop. That would have given us no cliff-edge, and nearly all of the economic advantages of remaining EU members without having to pay a penny in fees and without the non-trade-related legal constraints, which the EU would have absolutely hated as it was the ultimate cherry-picking. It was a brilliant piece of negotiation by the UK team, and it's no wonder that several EU countries thought it was too generous to us.
Alas, now thrown away. I dare say we will continue the habit of repeatedly making bad decisions, which started with the rejection of Cameron's renegotiated terms and has been downhill from there.
Maybe that's what Sunny Jim meant in the comment I was replying to, but if so it wasn't clear to me.
If Labour receive the shellacking I am expecting under Corbyn, then it will most likely take more than one more GE to pull back from the low number of MPs.
"Mr McDonnell told journalists earlier in the day that he was ready for a December election — “I’ve bought a winter coat” "
Bloody capitalist.
What I meant was the extensions are sequential so parliament gets two bites at the cherry so to speak.
a) The initial extension is for 2 weeks to ratify the deal as it is.
b) If ratification fails then a 3 month extension would kick in dependent on a GE being held. If parliament is unwilling to hold a GE then we would exit at the end of the initial 2 week treaty extension.
The EU would be being more than accommodating in providing time for both realistic outcomes that are available to parliament.
The Conservative positioning for the next election is "We may lose some ground to the Lib Dems and SNP, but we'll win a load of red v blue places that have been out of our grasp before but where Brexit has brought into play".
That's exactly what Bassetlaw is. So the question is will they get it, or will Labour know exactly where the 50%+1 of the electorate live, and flush them out and to the polling stations?
My view continues to be that Labour will do it in Bassetlaw and elsewhere. They are past masters of the backs-to-the-wall fight, twisting the arms of their reluctant voters, and frogmarching them from the council estate to the polling booth when it really matters. Even with Corbyn's poor leadership, I suspect when push comes to shove they've still got that. If not, they are in huge trouble.
Polling on Corbyn
21% trustworthy, 60% untrustworthy
29% honest, 47% dishonest
That deals with claim 1 on perceptions of Corbyn by the public.
Regarding claim 2, which is about the scale of Corbyn's lying, I appreciate that it is a very high bar to reach Johnson's level. I could pointlessly spend all afternoon bashing my head against a brick wall with you citing numerous examples with you and I am not going to waste my time doing that.
So here's just one mega example. Corbyn has been telling total porkies such that he would have us believe that he underwent a Damascene conversion about his attitude to the EU that just happened to coincide with the moment that he stood for the Labour leadership. A truly astounding example of political deception of huge importance on the issue that is completely dominated British politics for the past 4 years.
I won't be continuing this argument further. You are welcome to have the last word and convince yourself by my non-response that I no longer consider that you are 100% wrong.
https://twitter.com/DrSimEvans/status/1187672149697400833
Really, a war against the second amendment guys? That’s going to be awfully one-sided!
But, even if they take a hard beating, I am not sure about the time for the comeback.
The Tories might win a lot of traditional Labour seats this time (I'm sceptical, but they might). In five years time, we could quite easily be in more "normal" times. In those circumstances, those seats will be quite vulnerable.
The Bassetlaws of this world might go Tory now on the basis people buy "get Brexit done" and that they don't like Corbyn. But 2024/5 won't be a Brexit election and won't be a Corbyn election... they've voted Labour since the 1920s, so might it not very possibly be a flash in the pan for the Tories? Seems to me it could actually swing back quite easily.
The UK Air Defence system will love that.
I suspect Johnson came into office believing a WA based on the Brady Amendment was the only way forward and I think he thought he could carry a WA through the Commons which was broadly the same as the Brady Amendment.
Johnson's WA is now unravelling at speed and is, as you say, more detrimental to the interests of the UK than May's. I'm picking up plenty of commentary on commitments to workers' rights and environmental protection which, to her credit, May agreed to support but which Johnson's text has left ambiguous and is clearly paving the way for an assault on those protections and standards were he to get his majority.
The speed at which the EU acceded to Johnson told me immediately we had conceded on a huge range of issues notably the backstop. The irony of Johnson talking about "surrender" in the Commons when he and his negotiators have surrendered away Britain's future interests won't be lost on voters as the full details of the WA come out.