Westminstenders: The Non-Pact Pact

[RedToothBrush]

The Brexit Party and the Conservatives have agreed a trumpian pact to no deal. Led by the ERG.

They don't want you to know its a pact because the Conservatives still want One Nation Conservatives types to believe they are still One Nation Conservatives, simply because they say they are. They are not.

The Brexit Party won't stand any candidates in a Conservative held seat. But don't be surprised if there isn't more Non-Pact tactical stepping aside. This of course won't be a Pact. Cos the Brexit Party say its not. And the Conservative Party say its not.

The Liberal Democrats, Plaid and the Greens are in an electoral pact. They say they are in an electoral pact and have published a list.

Meanwhile the Labour Party isn't in a Pact. But there is still talk that in key seats that someone (either the LDs or Labour) should stand aside to try and deseat key Conservatives. This won't happen because the Lib Dems and Labour are not in a pact. And when they say they are not in a pact they aren't.

If after an election we have a hung parliament then either the Conservatives or Labour who are not in a pact and say they will never be in a pact, will try and woo someone to a kingmaker and be in government with them, probably on a supply and demand basis rather than coalition. They'll deny this but we kind of know how this goes...

@squid4 I hear ya. I work for the NHS (admin not HCP) and see people constantly going above and beyond to help patients. But they can’t do it forever. Burnout and other mental health issues are serious concerns.
I know the LibDems are Remain but what’s their policies in the NHS?

Farage is right about one thing: Even "paper" candidates attract some votes

Yes, but it’s a fallacy that those voters would have voted for the particular competitive candidate had the paper candidate not stood. In a tight race where it’s clear who the two competitive candidates are, it would be a strange voter indeed who thought:

“I know this is a straight BXP-Labour fight, and I would vote BXP to help ensure Labour was defeated, but given that there’s a Tory candidate, I will vote of them, and help Labour retain the seat.”

Of course the Tories would get votes in those seats, but they would principally from voters who would never vote BXP. There will also be voters who vote for incoherent, irrational reasons, but they will be sprinkled across all parties, and a Tory candidate could cause those voters to vote any which way.

I'm sorry, 120,000 people have died avoidably due to Tory policy and Corbyn is the dangerous one? Come again?

A dramatic, and frankly unbelievable, statistic doubtless compiled using spurious equivalencies and extrapolations... However, I’m willing to be proved wrong if you can provide a link demonstrating its credibility!

Yeah...
Don't listen to an nhs dr telling you this ^
Ffs....

David Gauke @Davidgauke
Let me reiterate what I said yesterday about Brexit. My preference was for the country to come together behind a soft Brexit. But that’s not going to happen - it’s no longer an option. The best option now is a confirmatory referendum on the PM’s deal. I would campaign to remain.

It's the nominee signatures that is difficult for LD HQ. Without the cooperation of local parties, Sal will be on the phone ringing every party member in the constituency herself in the hope she can find 10 none active members willing to do it....
Or they'll get boots on the ground and go door knocking to find 10 local people willing to sign. I've had someone knock to ask me before.

Tony Connelly @tconnellyrte
BREAKING: the EU trade commissioner-designate Phil Hogan has said British consumers will expect the UK to sign up to the EU’s labour, environmental and food standards as part of a free trade agreement for which he will be chief negotiator next year.

Giving an upbeat prediction of how quickly the trade negotiations could be concluded, Mr Hogan said the EU would be ready to go “before St Patrick’s Day” next year, but that the UK would have to decide early on in the negotiations which EU rules they were prepared to sign up to.

Speaking to @rtenews Mr Hogan said: “The British public will demand and expect that their government will sign on to EU standards because we have the highest standards in the world.”

In remarks which will be seen as an encouragement for Boris Johnson, who has said an FTA could be negotiated before the end of next year, Mr Hogan said that because the UK had been part of the EU’s trading regime for 45 years then neither side was starting from scratch.

“We’re not starting from zero so therefore I believe we can do - with a bit of good will on both sides - we can do an agreement more quickly than we would do with any other negotiations around the world which would take three or four years."

“The United Kingdom have been part of the European Union. They’ve been part of the trade framework for the past 45 years, so we’re not starting from scratch.”

Speaking at an event held by the European Movement Ireland (EMI) in Brussels, Mr Hogan told RTE News that the UK would have to decide which EU regulations the UK wanted to be part of, and which they would diverge from.

He said a key issue would be the kinds of standards that British consumers wanted to adhere to. “I would say a majority of the [EU] regulations that are there won’t be a problem for the consumers or workers or people who are working in the environmental or agricultural [sphere]

...if they want to have the highest possible standards."

“I think that’s the key issue: standards.”

Mr Hogan would not be drawn on whether or not adherence to EU standards would require the UK to abide by the oversight of the European Commission and the enforcement mechanisms of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), to which eurosceptics like Mr Johnson have long been hostile.

He said that because both sides had signed up to shared principles on the future relationship through the Political Declaration, which accompanies the Withdrawal Agreement, then the issues would not be as difficult as might be expected.

Mr Hogan said the European Commission had already done a substantial amount of preparation for the EU-UK future relationship negotiations. For this reason he believed the talks could be done quickly.

“I do feel there is political good will on both sides, having got this far in the Phase I negotiations [the Withdrawal Agreement] eventually they will not want - either side - to upset each other in having a frictionless tariff-free, quota-free agreement,” he said.

He added that the UK would have to sign up to so-called level playing field provisions, which the EU see as preventing a potentially low-regulation UK from undercutting the European economy.

But he believed things could move quickly.

"I would think there will be a significant amount of progress made because we will be ready to go in the springtime. The [European Council] will have to give us a mandate.

"All the details around that can be achieved very quickly. We can get into the negotiations before Patrick’s Day if there is political good will on the part of the United Kingdom, and we’re ready to go.”

Mr Hogan qualified his remarks saying everything depended on the outcome of the British election.

“If there’s a majority government of course it makes a big difference. If Mr Johnson is going to have a majority we’ll have a WAt approved by mid-Jan and if there’s an alternative to Mr Johnson elected, led by Labour and the Lib Dems, we’ll probably have another referendum

"So we wait with baited breath for the 12th of December."

An EU FTA is incompatible with a US deal if we want a deal by the 31st December 2020 for both political and technical reasons. This has always been the case and something that was obvious before the referendum.

@RedToothBrush

That does change the position regarding Gauke... the LDs should reconsider. They allowed Philip Lee to be an MP and he voted for May’s WA!

Or they'll get boots on the ground and go door knocking to find 10 local people willing to sign. I've had someone knock to ask me before.

Those boots would have been local boots.

HQ have to actively get someone from outside to do it.

I think anyone thinking of voting LD is more likely to know the local situation.

Thus I can only guess that you'd be more likely to get signatories who support leaving who would sign rather than party sympathisers ... Which is nuts

Oakenbeach: I think it is a matter of public record that people have died because of benefits being withheld, or because of the hostile environment. (One of the Windrush victims who was refused healthcare died this week aged 62).

I wouldn't want to put a figure on it though.

You probably could estimate the number of "excess" deaths due to the quite significant fall lin life expectancy in some U.K. towns. Because a fall in life expectancy is unusual in developed countries, and because it is highly correlated with the Cameron-May governments, there's an argument to be made.

I think the figures bandied around on social media are mostly just plucked from thin air though.

@Hoooo

I don’t tend to believe anything anyone posts in the internet on face value, especially not snippets on an Internet forum.... I thought that was basic common sense taught to primary school children.

Just because it might suit your narrative doesn’t mean it’s true. What next: “Boris ate my hamster!”.... “It must be true, an Internet forum poster who says they’re a vet said so!”

Posting such stuff might play well to the echo chamber of those already fully converted to the cause, but doesn’t convince anyone else, quite the contrary!

Thus I can only guess that you'd be more likely to get signatories who support leaving who would sign rather than party sympathisers ... Which is nuts
That's not strictly true. I've seen people out door knocking for this in a few elections (usually because there's been a cock up on the original forms granted) and you get quite an odd mix of people willing to sign but have no intention of voting for those they're nominating or voting at all, as well as those sympathetic to the party. It's a very strange thing but not unheard of. I was asked by a local independent and would have signed though I'd already signed for someone else and that would have shafted them again. Would be a thankless task for whoever they'd manage to rope into it if they did though.

I think it is a matter of public record that people have died because of benefits being withheld, or because of the hostile environment. (One of the Windrush victims who was refused healthcare died this week aged 62).

I’m not trying to deny there haven’t been incidents where Government policy has been a contributory factor to death.... and where this has been demonstrated the Government should absolutely be challenged forcibly on that.

It was the casual use of an astronomical number that I took issue with, as though the Tories are on a par with Stalin or Pol Pot.

bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/11/e017722

You could argue figures for sure but it's huge. Huge.

The Red Cross declared NHS A&Es a humanitarian emergency in 2017
I think I can give you about 1-2 examples per month of avoidable death I have PERSONALLY seen due to (mainly) staff absences, waiting times, inability to discharge patients due to cuts to social care, and stripped back mental health services. (I mean I can't due to confidentiality but I could.) I am ONE doctor. I am on the verge of whistleblowing or quitting and I know loads of people who have done

These are your grandparents!! Your neighbours!!

Oakenbeach

Check out the govts own stats then!

The suicides due to UC.

The preventable deaths in the nhs due to lack of staff/beds.

You really don't have to look too hard

I can tell you that, nationally, use of trussell trust foodbanks has gone up 73% since the introduction of UC.

Locally its 53%.

Check out the state of hunger report
Www.trusselltrust.org.uk

Re Mr Hogan...He added that the UK would have to sign up to so-called level playing field provisions, which the EU see as preventing a potentially low-regulation UK from undercutting the European economy

I am sure Mr Hogan is very experienced but I fear he may either be an optimist or be basing his prediction on how the Irish public would react rather than the English:

1. British consumers will not expect the UK to sign up to the EU’s labour, environmental and food standards as part of a free trade agreement. The English public either are disinterested or have a vague brainwashed notion that regulations (designed to protect them) are a bad thing.

1. The whole anti EU agenda from the days of the referendum party of Sir James Goldsmith to today's ERG has been motivated by a desire for low corporate taxation and a low welfare state.

Mr Hogan underestimates the driver which is to maximise profit for the very few by reduced protections for the many.

Why does Hogan think the current proposed deal moved the consumer & workers right bit from the binding part of the agreement to the PD? Why go to all this trouble to be free of the limited protections only to sign up to them again?

Undercutting the EU economy is the key part of the end goal. If the JRMs etc can't do that then why do this at all?

Farage on R4 this morning saying the BXP will stand in those 300 seats to “hold the Conservatives to account”.

So we know who's standing where by end of day?

I think I can give you about 1-2 examples per month of avoidable death I have PERSONALLY seen due to (mainly) staff absences, waiting times, inability to discharge patients due to cuts to social care, and stripped back mental health services.

My former neighbour (NHS consultant) says exactly the same. She says she sets up what should happen for patient care but knows it won't be followed through, due to nursing shortages, absences and stripped back social care. She says categorically more patients are now dying who otherwise would have lived longer.

But it's all ok with the ERG lot isn't it? because the fittest survive in life. To paraphrase in an adapted made up quote which I hope makes the point..

' Nick, The more one thinks about the chances of people surviving in understaffed hospitals, if you just ignore what you’re told and leave you are so much safer. And I think if either of us were in hospital, whatever the doctors said, we would leave the understaffed building. It just seems the common sense thing to do."

That does change the position regarding Gauke... the LDs should reconsider. They allowed Philip Lee to be an MP and he voted for May’s WA!

Personally I think rather than the puritanical stance the LDs took which fuels the polarised nature of political debate which is unhealthy, they could easily have framed it in a softer way which says that if Mr Gauke took a softer line going forward they would be more sympathic.

That leaves the door more open to leavers who might change their minds and soft Remainers who have considered the possibility that a soft leave might be a better option at this point.

It's the aggressive militancy I find unbecoming and divisive every bit as much as militant leavers. They can still be remain but language and framing are still important.

There was a terrific interview with the editor of the Yorkshire Post on Today somewhere between 06:45 and 07:00, well worth a listen - articulate, eloquent and principled and didn't let himself be browbeaten or deflected at any point by Nick R.
Kudos though to Nick for giving Luciana Berger a hard time on gender self-ID later.

I'm feeling a bit silly this morning. Had a bit too much of the old vino last night and appear to have called Corbyn 'the most dangerous man in Britain'
I think we're all tying ourselves in knots looking for any redeeming features in the political 'leaders'. Apart from Nicola of course

It certainly is very difficult to deal with the constant nonsense about Jeremy Corbyn when confronted by a Conservative party more bloated , arrogant and complacent than I can ever remember. Changes to welfare have undoubtedly led to fatalities, the NHS is on its knees , and children in our country, one of the richest in the world, are insecurely housed and hungry. Even Cendrillon must have noticed how many businesses are going to the wall, Tory promises of investment in infrastructure seem unlikely to bear fruit.
Thank you, Squid for reminding me that sometimes anger is the right response.