I would have thought that anyone reading ConHome woukl have found such a diversity of opinion that it would be difficult to identify a consistent thread that would qualify as a takeover. Even Brexit still has Remainers posting here on a regular basis while still allowing dissent in the columns below their articles.
Speaking for myself I have always admired the emergence of expert opinion among our posters who can point us gently in the right direction when we lack information or a sense of reality in our own views.
I don`t pretend this view is singular; there must be many who agree with this line. All I would say is that I hope contributors of all opinions here will keep their input coming in for the education of the rest of us
As we have a Party system one might hope that the manifesto on which any government is elected will embrace the beliefs of those who represent constituencies. While one might therefore countenance occasional divergence of interest, it should be possible to operate without cataclysmic differences and large-scale revolts by MPs who disagree with fundamental policy proposals. Continual and fundamental disagreement makes it clear that there is a serious disconnect within the Party that suffers from such differences. While we accept that the Conservative Party, for example, is a broad coalition it shouild not be such that compromise is impossible
When `own troops` begin to show signs of a lack of discipline it is more than likely that the government, which they ought to support, is failing to live up to its manifesto promises when formulating policy. With a plethora of U turns, the uncertain note being sounded by the administration`s trumpeter together with the apparent policy vacuum that seems to emerge from time to time, it is little wonder that the Whips Office is finding its task increasingly difficult.
Of course it will sometimes be that iconoclastic backbenchers will simply find they are in the wrong Party and their voting record will eventually reveal this. We saw this happen over Brexit and it came as little surprise when those who had rebelled against the clear requirement registered by the country, lost the Whip and eventually lost their seats .However we must hope that governments will not be faced too often by such stark and unusual choices.
Thus the key remains in the raft of policies on which a government chooses to build its case in a constructive and consistent way so that its supporters in Parliament will not find it difficult to show their backing in the lobbies
The law of unintended consequences will surely apply here eventually. Trading with China is merely allowing the beginning of a flexing of political muscles by the human rights lobby and there are no prizes for guessing where their next target will be (Saudi Arabia of course) We are a trading nation. We survive and can afford to support our comprehensive welfare State with funds derived from that trade. The consequences of putting our ability to trade or otherwise in the hands of the Courts is tantamount to our withdrawing from the field of international trading relationships altogether; but hey; we`ll be feeling really good about watching the rest of the world laughing while we are sitting self-righteously in a corner.
We can make as many declarations as we please about the way other nations conduct their international affairs but when we do, we can expect to be blown a raspberry. We were instrumental in playing a major role in stopping slavery but we were able to do so because we had been key participants in that gruesome trade. The fact that we ourselves declined to do so any further helped to kill it. However we are now talking about the internal affairs of another nation which do not impose directly on us. To imagine we can stop the way China treats its minorities is fatuous
Davey seems to be using Raab as a mouthpiece
That sounds reasonable
On top of all the other measures planned for (against?) agriculture, this would be the final nail in the coffin of our domestic industry.
I searched in vain for any mention of Marshall Aid and the assistance in reconstruction of post-war Germany by the Western Allies. This of course included the major cost of defence which, to counter the threat of an expansionist USSR that loomed over the security of Western Europe ensured the conditions for reconstruction. As a result of this favourable situation Germany was able to rebuild its economy, business and industry while her erstwhile enemies were diverting resources they could well have used at home to the reconstruction of one of the most powerful enemies of modern times.
While this has been beneficial to post-war stability and underpinned the development of the EU there seems little doubt that had Germany been left to her own devices we might be hearing a different story today.
One should not criticise Germany for taking advantage of such favourable circumstances but celebrate the fact that they have discovered it is possible to gain international influence and power without having to resort to armed force to do so.
Well they could try and as they have supported the present regime they might be made welcome....for a while. However I guess the Russians will eventually be unwelcome guests and eventually they will leave. The major factor will be Iran`s ambitions to become a nuclear armed power with a view to expanding influence in the region. I guess there will eventually be a demand from regional powers for assistance in restoring the status quo ante and it could then devolve to the UN to find a solution. This is the sort of outcome I believe we should seek while steering clear of making any military contribution, certainly to start with. Hoever in international diplomacy I have learned that one never says `Never`
I agree but military intervention is not the only option