Discussion
davepoth
Pragmatism over their own careers yes, but not over trivial matters like running the country.
Murph
Yes ultimately you are one or the other, and I always had a hard time believing that people like May didn't feel strongly on Europe one way or the other. How on earth can you aspire to the highest offices of government and not have an opinion on whether or not the country you aspire to govern should be part of a continent wide political union?
But the Tories have been treading a fine line on Europe for decades. Thatcher's handbag showed them that you could make political capital by 'sticking it to Brussels' and Major carried it on. The trouble is it ran away with them, and those who heard Thatcher's No No No as spotty kids are now are now MPs and ministers.
eharding
It's a good question. It's possible that the country has simply exhausted its reserves of both pragmatism and vision, and become cynical about vision in particular. When elections are decided by who is least disastrous for the economy and who is least disastrous for public services parliament after parliament it isn't very inspiring. There's a lot to be said for basic administrative competence but neither side has even shown much of that for a generation. I think the Ottoman empire got a bit like that for a while.
My belief is that virtually nobody in this country loves the European Union or especially believes in Britain being a fully fledged member of a political union. The whole reason Cameron didn't put a sensible compromise like EFTA on the table in 2016 was that he knew such an arrangement would win by a thumping majority.
It would only take the relatively modest 'vision' of getting Britain into something like that to unite a huge chunk of people on both sides of the leave/remain divide behind something that is actually workable.
Pragmatism over their own careers yes, but not over trivial matters like running the country.
Murph
Yes ultimately you are one or the other, and I always had a hard time believing that people like May didn't feel strongly on Europe one way or the other. How on earth can you aspire to the highest offices of government and not have an opinion on whether or not the country you aspire to govern should be part of a continent wide political union?
But the Tories have been treading a fine line on Europe for decades. Thatcher's handbag showed them that you could make political capital by 'sticking it to Brussels' and Major carried it on. The trouble is it ran away with them, and those who heard Thatcher's No No No as spotty kids are now are now MPs and ministers.
eharding
It's a good question. It's possible that the country has simply exhausted its reserves of both pragmatism and vision, and become cynical about vision in particular. When elections are decided by who is least disastrous for the economy and who is least disastrous for public services parliament after parliament it isn't very inspiring. There's a lot to be said for basic administrative competence but neither side has even shown much of that for a generation. I think the Ottoman empire got a bit like that for a while.
My belief is that virtually nobody in this country loves the European Union or especially believes in Britain being a fully fledged member of a political union. The whole reason Cameron didn't put a sensible compromise like EFTA on the table in 2016 was that he knew such an arrangement would win by a thumping majority.
It would only take the relatively modest 'vision' of getting Britain into something like that to unite a huge chunk of people on both sides of the leave/remain divide behind something that is actually workable.
psi310398 said:
YouGov - not looking good for her at all, assuming that MPs are hearing broadly the same on the doorstep in their constituencies:
The cabinet have found a previously uncharted area of the graph. Most thought it was impossible, but May has managed to devise a plan which the cabinet have been rail-roaded into thinking is terrific, but which can count among its strong opponents:- Labour voters
- Conservative voters
- Leave voters
- Remain voters
- And the general population as a whole
desolate said:
BJ was out for dinner with Farage last night - plotting a new party together or just getting some last minute instructions from Steve Bannon?
Neither. Would take too long to setup a new national party.Boris wants to be seen as the leavers choice candidate, hanging with Farage will add more 'boris really does belives in leaving' credibility to someone who needs it.
hyphen said:
Hand it to her why though? She appears to have, and is continuing, to put her own career before country...
Because she hasn't walked away. What is so bad about having a prime minister polishing the turd of Brexit in full view of the world.With the world watching the UK Goverment pick itself apart it can't be a bad idea to have someone who is determined to achieve somthing other than destruction.
According to the Telegraphs front page Gove, Fox and crew want to let you know they care.
Not enough of course to forgo a ministerial salary and perks, or indeed to do anything other than a briefing to a sympathetic newspaper, but they care.
If anyone is in a newsagent today well worth checking out the Matt cartoon on the front page. He has nailed it again
Not enough of course to forgo a ministerial salary and perks, or indeed to do anything other than a briefing to a sympathetic newspaper, but they care.
If anyone is in a newsagent today well worth checking out the Matt cartoon on the front page. He has nailed it again
According to ConservativeHome, seven out of ten Party member respondents oppose the draft Brexit deal:
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018...
If the poll accurately reflects Tory grassroots opinion, I wonder how many Tory MPs are getting thorough ear-bendings this weekend, and what impact that will have on the number of letters Brady gets next week.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018...
If the poll accurately reflects Tory grassroots opinion, I wonder how many Tory MPs are getting thorough ear-bendings this weekend, and what impact that will have on the number of letters Brady gets next week.
psi310398 said:
citizensm1th said:
And utterly pointless now the loony god fearing medievalists have abandoned her.
The ERG are going to end up on the same old scrap heap that farage is king of .
Nobody likes a back stabber you never can trust them once they show their true colours.
How are they backstabbers? The ERG are going to end up on the same old scrap heap that farage is king of .
Nobody likes a back stabber you never can trust them once they show their true colours.
They have consistently tried to hold TM to her manifesto commitments. She is the one who has welshed on the electorate.
What else can they honourably do?
king stabbing - in the country's back. What she's up to is absolutely outrageous.hyphen said:
desolate said:
BJ was out for dinner with Farage last night - plotting a new party together or just getting some last minute instructions from Steve Bannon?
Neither. Would take too long to setup a new national party.Boris wants to be seen as the leavers choice candidate, hanging with Farage will add more 'boris really does belives in leaving' credibility to someone who needs it.
Anybody who's seen the videos of him in the EU will know he rips them a new one every time. If only he were running the negotiations.
Cobnapint said:
hyphen said:
desolate said:
BJ was out for dinner with Farage last night - plotting a new party together or just getting some last minute instructions from Steve Bannon?
Neither. Would take too long to setup a new national party.Boris wants to be seen as the leavers choice candidate, hanging with Farage will add more 'boris really does belives in leaving' credibility to someone who needs it.
Anybody who's seen the videos of him in the EU will know he rips them a new one every time. If only he were running the negotiations.
Ghibli said:
Because she hasn't walked away. What is so bad about having a prime minister polishing the turd of Brexit in full view of the world.
With the world watching the UK Goverment pick itself apart it can't be a bad idea to have someone who is determined to achieve somthing other than destruction.
Speak for yourself. With the world watching the UK Goverment pick itself apart it can't be a bad idea to have someone who is determined to achieve somthing other than destruction.
In any case, destruction is exactly what she will be achieving. I don't particularly care if the Conservative or Labour parties eventually implode over this, but this craven 'deal' threatens both the independence of the UK and the basis on which this country has been governed for centuries.
I, for one, would rather have an economic hiccup or two and a clean break than see her preside over the destruction of our independence and democracy. The texts of the documents, read together, and I have read all of them, are designed to lock the UK in perpetuity to the EU, unless the most generous possible view is taken of the EU's intentions, not obligations. Nobody would sign a business deal on the basis of the 'warm words' expressed as to future behaviour.
As the full awfulness of the deal and May's betrayal/capitulation becomes clear, I'm sure many others will agree.
Apart from the principles at stake, there are some practical issues: in any business when considering a future investment (and indeed government), the business first identifies the problem to be solved, the key issues affecting it and some sense of their order of importance. It then appraises options; the starting point before making a decision is 'what happens if I do nothing'? Next is 'what is the minimum I must do'? A range of possible solutions to the problem to be solved is then investigated and ranked according to a set of criteria. I've never seen an appraisal recommend going forward on the basis of doing a deal that actually makes the position worse by design and which does nothing to solve many of the key problems the investment was intended to deal with. It just would not pass the first sift.
Following the referendum, 'doing nothing' is not an option. 'Doing minimum' must at the least honour the referendum result and the manifesto commitments of the party that won the subsequent election. This is what the 'business' set out to achieve. After that, there is a range of options, which can be tested for cost, benefit, risk etc. to determine which is the best or most practicable or most affordable solution. But the minimum must surely be that it achieves what the business is aiming for.
The other practical point is that the 'deal' is unsustainable. Does anybody sane think for a minute that it would put the Europe issue to bed for the UK? The best that can be said for it is that it kicks the can down the road by a few months. By the time decisions need to be taken, does anybody think they will be easier to solve because the UK is less divided?
No deal really is preferable to this 'deal'. It, at the very least, leaves our options open for a future trading relationship. In negotiating jargon, the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) for the eventual FTA (if there is one) is WTO and is now IMV also the only practical path to a sustainable negotiated agreement.
psi310398 said:
Ghibli said:
Because she hasn't walked away. What is so bad about having a prime minister polishing the turd of Brexit in full view of the world.
With the world watching the UK Goverment pick itself apart it can't be a bad idea to have someone who is determined to achieve somthing other than destruction.
Speak for yourself. With the world watching the UK Goverment pick itself apart it can't be a bad idea to have someone who is determined to achieve somthing other than destruction.
In any case, destruction is exactly what she will be achieving. I don't particularly care if the Conservative or Labour parties eventually implode over this, but this craven 'deal' threatens both the independence of the UK and the basis on which this country has been governed for centuries.
I, for one, would rather have an economic hiccup or two and a clean break than see her preside over the destruction of our independence and democracy. The texts of the documents, read together, and I have read all of them, are designed to lock the UK in perpetuity to the EU, unless the most generous possible view is taken of the EU's intentions, not obligations. Nobody would sign a business deal on the basis of the 'warm words' expressed as to future behaviour.
As the full awfulness of the deal and May's betrayal/capitulation becomes clear, I'm sure many others will agree.
Apart from the principles at stake, there are some practical issues: in any business when considering a future investment (and indeed government), the business first identifies the problem to be solved, the key issues affecting it and some sense of their order of importance. It then appraises options; the starting point before making a decision is 'what happens if I do nothing'? Next is 'what is the minimum I must do'? A range of possible solutions to the problem to be solved is then investigated and ranked according to a set of criteria. I've never seen an appraisal recommend going forward on the basis of doing a deal that actually makes the position worse by design and which does nothing to solve many of the key problems the investment was intended to deal with. It just would not pass the first sift.
Following the referendum, 'doing nothing' is not an option. 'Doing minimum' must at the least honour the referendum result and the manifesto commitments of the party that won the subsequent election. This is what the 'business' set out to achieve. After that, there is a range of options, which can be tested for cost, benefit, risk etc. to determine which is the best or most practicable or most affordable solution. But the minimum must surely be that it achieves what the business is aiming for.
The other practical point is that the 'deal' is unsustainable. Does anybody sane think for a minute that it would put the Europe issue to bed for the UK? The best that can be said for it is that it kicks the can down the road by a few months. By the time decisions need to be taken, does anybody think they will be easier to solve because the UK is less divided?
No deal really is preferable to this 'deal'. It, at the very least, leaves our options open for a future trading relationship. In negotiating jargon, the Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) for the eventual FTA (if there is one) is WTO and is now IMV also the only practical path to a sustainable negotiated agreement.
If you put the referendum to one side and look at what is best for country. Is it those trade deals that we will be getting with the rest of the world. If so, what deals will we be getting and what will we be selling.
Ghibli said:
But you aren't running the country and from what I can make out you have target fixation on the referendum.
If you put the referendum to one side and look at what is best for country. Is it those trade deals that we will be getting with the rest of the world. If so, what deals will we be getting and what will we be selling.
OK. I, naively perhaps, tend to the view that the electorate under our system determines what is best for the country when it is explicitly asked a question.If you put the referendum to one side and look at what is best for country. Is it those trade deals that we will be getting with the rest of the world. If so, what deals will we be getting and what will we be selling.
As for trade, what we currently do, minus that which falls away because it is uncompetitive, plus new things that we do because we have become more competitive.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff