Westministenders: The Only Election That Matters - The Tory One

[RedToothBrush]

Fallout from the Euro Elections makes for interesting reading for the leadership hopefuls.

Its not a clear cut as some make out. There is still a case for a deal. The trouble is passing it through parliament. And there is no time to do that. Nor no will.

Any new leader's priority isn't going to be a deal. Its going to be avoiding a General Election. And thats going to be hard.

We are also realistically facing the prospect of another extension which France is likely to block leading to no deal or no deal.

Or a 2nd Referendum.

A 2nd Referendum might be the only way to avoid a General Election. And that will still have no deal on the ballot. Of that you can be sure.

Peter Foster of the Telegraph remarked this morning that in fact the only way to a deal now, might well be via no deal, because of all the routes we have exhausted through incompetence. And that will come at a very high price.

Sources say he is “reaching beyond the traditional Tory fundraising base of city and finance” by attracting donors from the farming community, tech entrepreneurs, retail figures and people from sport and entertainment.

Surely, as the Tories need new donors, this should make him a sensible choice? If he can bring money to the table (which they're desperate for) it's a good thing?

Again, probably too sensible an idea to consider for their - rather rabid - members.

Lonely that makes sense re BJ I totally forgot he was mayor not MP at time of referendum.

I really don’t think it will make him more popular amongst Tory grassroots. I imagine MPs backing him will seek to put distance between themselves as this thing looks like it might have legs.

I think it would be reasonable to argue that the EP elections across the EU have shown that many want reforms and will push hard for them. NOW would be a good time to declare 'Remain' and pile in with the other 27 to make reform happen.

I don't really agree with this, unless by reform you mean "make Europe greener", because at the union scale, populist gains were minor.

On this topic, I saw yesterday that Farage is in talks with Le Pen's/Salvini's EP group.

Why would he want to do this if he doesn't expect to remain beyond October? The new EP will barely sit before the official Brexit date.

If Farage, Le Pen and Salvini set aside their differences it will do two things:

• make it clear that the BP is to the right of UKIP (Salvini and Le Pen were judged too extreme by the kippers)
• give an incentive to the populists to keep the U.K. in the EU because otherwise their group loses a third of its seats and most of its influence

Mistigri
I was meaning more of a shake up rather than a massive shift. Some in the EP have tried to move things on a bit and as a 'supertanker' it takes time to change course. I am hoping that with more greens and other influences being vocal, it will speed up change for the better .
Angela Merkel I felt put her support for immigrants out on a limb and she got criticism for it. Morally she was correct but EP machinery was too slow.

I have a mental image of 'politics' as having a (so me) sensible balanced centre ground from which you can see gradually increasing far left and far right. I see this as a circle though in which the far extremes then 'meet' behind me in a mush of extreme 'horribleness' where the ideologies are opposites but everybody hates everybody else.

I think it would be reasonable to argue that the EP elections across the EU have shown that many want reforms and will push hard for them.

Actually this makes you realise how ill conceived the binary referendum was. If there had been a "don't know" option on the ref (as there are in many opinion polls) many people would have ticked that box.

Other options to help advise the gov could have included:

1. Leave now without a deal.

2.Leave at some point if we get any better deal.

1. Leave but only if we get a Norway type deal.
2. Leave but only when we've get a Canada type deal.

5.Wait for 5 years to push for reform and see how reforms pan out. 6.. Wait for 10 years to see how EU reforms pan out. 7.Leave in 10 years time anyway.

1. Don't know.
2. Remain

Yes I know this seems silly. But then at least the gov could have worked with Parliament to decide a path based on the ref advice without such pressure of the people's 52% will.

Basilpots Wed 29-May-19 17:58:44

DG JRM educated but not clever

No, he is extremely clever, and extremely dangerous. He knows what he is saying wrt separate spheres, and he knows what he is implying. He is fully aware that he is casting opprobrium on the law, casting the law as a thief trying to steal something from the public.

I suspect what the opposition to the idea of a Citizens Assembly boils down to is that it is far too rational and reasonable a response to an intractable problem for the UK to entertain.

It strikes me that a lot of people still regard Brexit as an event rather than a process (a long, drawn-out one at that), and are under the misconception that once we leave, we’ll just be able to focus on other stuff....

I think a fair proportion of Brexit Party voters fall into that camp. They’re not actually all that fussed about Brexit, they just want to “get on with it”, and “get it done” so things can return to normality.

Shouldn’t a critical campaigning position for Remain therefore be that if you just want the whole Brexit thing over with, the best thing to do is revoke as only that will enable the Government to focus on the domestic agenda, the NHS, social care, crime etc.... and that a “no-deal”, far from being a simple straightforward solution, will lead to years of further negotiation and turmoil.

lonelyplanetmum
Your list (I see some errors but never mind) only works if you have a reasonable rational population and they have not been spun lies.
Most on this thread (Westminsters) start off from a position of 'reasonable' and crucially are prepared to alter their minds and research, looking for wider confirmation of things that have been asserted.
So many are content to NOT think and question things. Yes we were lied to during the initial referendum. If your world experience was contrary to the lies, 'we' either dismissed them out of hand or made an attempt to verify.
Leavers playing the 'they came here and took our jobs' card didn't think 'why have these folks trekked here from Latvia, Romania etc to do backbreaking shit work in muddy fields in Lincolnshire'?
They do it to provide for their families because there either is no 'welfare state' or it is rubbish in their home country.

{They’re not actually all that fussed about Brexit, they just want to “get on with it”, and “get it done” so things can return to normality.}

The expectation was that immediately after the referendum the UK economy would crash and 'leavers' saw the fact that it didn't as a sign that leaving would be 'fine' and it was all project fear. The fact the banks were scrabbling around to prevent too much damage will have bypassed the 'leaver in the street'.
As I and others have said repeatedly, getting the WA signed is only stage l, setting the ground rules for departure, and after 3 years we haven't managed that. The real negotiations haven't started yet.

The redeployment of Ms Weyland and possibly Mr Barnier are interesting developments. Thus far very logical. Ms Weyland as a trade negotiator is relevant whether the UK crashes out or revokes.

It also risks the tables being turned and Brexiteer taking Remainer to court for something or other....

As it should be if they have broken the law. With the bleating about it overturning democracy, it very much looked like an argument that Leavers are above the law and can lie and cheat with impunity.

Partly related, I could not help but think that Manifesto pledges are not held to be legally binding, yet Leavers are taking the manifesto pledge to leave and Cameron's words as legally binding in an advisory referendum. Yet only last week, they piled in to vote for a 'party' which has no Manifesto and doesn't seem too bothered about writing one.

So which is it - manifesto pledges should be regarded as legally binding, or they are so unimportant a party can stand without producing one?

misti I think Farage aim has always been to destroy the EU, not to just get out of it. I think he knows well he can do more damage as an MEP, from the inside and with the support of others such as the FN. And they know it too.

And that’s why I’m pissed off with this last European elections and its focus on ‘its a Leave or Remain vote again’ rather than a vote for the future of Europe. The results and the number of BXP members will be damaging to Europe (or at least they will do their utmost for it to be). No wonder Farage thought it had won!!

I don't think Farage forsaw the LibDem/Green surge, which now offers a counterbalance in the EU Parliament.

Still if he does want to wreck it, won't he have to attend sometimes?

{ I think Farage aim has always been to destroy the EU,}
He is certainly out to be a troublemaker, which for his 'attention to details' and associating with others where detail is not required, simply spouting stuff to cause unrest which is easy 'work'.
Claiming to be a 'man of the people' is the polar opposite of what the EU is about, trying to get the best life experience for as many as possible in Europe.

Esther McVey (on BBC Breakfast) is going on about how she will be targetting "blue collar conservatives".

Do you think she means the blue rinse running on to their collars?

She also repeats without challenge the trope that this was the largest democratic exercise ever in this country. This is wrong on both grounds - percentage (which with a growing population is the more important one ) and in absolute terms (it was either 1992 or 1997 where more people voted)

She is also quite happily advocating a No Deal Brexit and laying in place the foundations for it's the EU's fault if there are then problems as our door will be open

(but her hair was very nice )

{but her hair was very nice}
I thought we were supposed to be moving on from 'Miss World' superficiality?

targetting "blue collar conservatives"

Could someone tell me the context

Cos at the moment I’m really worried about those workers

WHY IS SHE TARGETING THEM??? 😱.

- I was reflecting what others have said about her hair

We comment on BoJo's hair - so we're not being sexist And we've been commenting on Rory Stewart's looks

Also, McVey used to work in TV so she has made a career on being camera ready. The hair is an important part of her public persona.

Iirc (she was washing over my head), she didn't really say much about how her being PM would benefit blue collar Conservatives. It was just a sound bite for her leadership campaign

Did anyone else hear Philip Hammond almost supporting a referendum?
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-philip-hammond-theresa-may-latest-news-a8936091.html%3famp

Oh thank Christ

It meant get them on board...not shoot them!!

OK, a long musical piece for this morning.

{ The hair is an important part of her public persona.}

'Tell them about the honney manifestos mummy'.