The government's 'Stronger Towns Fund' could be a turning point in the Brexit debate.
Designed to give cover to Labour MPs to back Theresa May's deal, it is likely to have the opposite effect.
In fact, it leaves her parliamentary strategy in tatters. Here's why. (1/10)
It equates to £145m/year for the North of England or less than £10 per person. It is £80m for the Midlands, or £8 per person.
It is less than the budget of St. Thomas' Hospital. (2/10)
Thatcher's deindustrialisation and the following 40 years of neglect have left many communities feeling humiliated.
For many, Brexit was about reversing that humiliation--this makes Brexit a new phase of it. (3/10)
Brexit was supposed to change everything but instead it shows "nothing has changed".
It reveals the great deceit: humiliation comes from Westminster, not from Brussels.
That's why it could be a watershed moment. (4/10)
They can't say they are voting with the PM in the interests of their constituents
They've been taken for a ride & left exposed. How can they now vote with the PM? (5/10)
The Stronger Towns Fund debacle leaves that strategy in tatters.
Labour MPs would look ridiculous if they support her (6/10)
So Labour MPs can't say they will vote for the deal because they fear no-deal would harm their constituents.
No carrot, no stick. (7/10)
The ERG has set an impossibly high bar that Cox will not be able to meet.
So a Tory+DUP strategy won't work either (8/10)
It makes a 2nd referendum significantly more likely. The Stronger Towns Fund is so pathetic, it almost seems May wants her deal to fail. (9/10)
A more skilled PM simply wouldn't be in this mess. It's part of a pattern, as I've written about here >> (10/10) independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-…