Uncontrolled anything on mass is bad. Immigration, rain, kittens, or plastic crack.
Yes immigration is needed however like in all things under a steady control, with time for people to adapt, integrate and settle etc.
Not a wall, not a open door. A controlled system that can be slowed say if jobs growing slower, and spef up to fill skills shortages.
Australia gets one thing right. They let in skills they need, we should welcome those with valuable skills. But also be able to refuse those in we have excess as why welcome someone who will struggle to find work in there area where many other struggle. It simply just adds more demand for small numbers of jobs.
Over the weekend, Camden Council moved to evacuate 650 flats from four tower blocks in the Swiss Cottage area, after London Fire Brigade had raised concerns about cladding, gas pipe insulation, and fire doors.
Mr Javid told MPs more than 1,000 fire doors were missing from five blocks in the Camden borough and a number of stairways were not accessible.
From the BBC. So it seems for those specific blocks in Camden, they had a reason for getting the families out asap. Not quite a stazi eviction, after all.
Over the weekend, Camden Council moved to evacuate 650 flats from four tower blocks in the Swiss Cottage area, after London Fire Brigade had raised concerns about cladding, gas pipe insulation, and fire doors.
Mr Javid told MPs more than 1,000 fire doors were missing from five blocks in the Camden borough and a number of stairways were not accessible.
From the BBC. So it seems for those specific blocks in Camden, they had a reason for getting the families out asap. Not quite a stazi eviction, after all.
And they did not know the state this block was in...
Surely they have to pass some kinda year check like a rental does on gas, safety and the like?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Y'know, even as someone who thinks leaving the EU is a huge mistake for the UK, if it means you can reform your political system into a less dysfunctional one at least something good might come of it.
But worse country as a whole with lousy future ahead in return. GJ.
Uncontrolled anything on mass is bad. Immigration, rain, kittens, or plastic crack.
Yes immigration is needed however like in all things under a steady control, with time for people to adapt, integrate and settle etc.
Not a wall, not a open door. A controlled system that can be slowed say if jobs growing slower, and spef up to fill skills shortages.
Australia gets one thing right. They let in skills they need, we should welcome those with valuable skills. But also be able to refuse those in we have excess as why welcome someone who will struggle to find work in there area where many other struggle. It simply just adds more demand for small numbers of jobs.
1) nearly half of our immigration is already under complete UK control and that already exceeds this mythical "less than 100,000" people that seems to get trotted out as the target for "mass migration", by nearly 50% no less. So why don't the government do something about it? Maybe because all those people are needed.
2) when people start talking about point systems they inevitably seem to mean "only let highly qualified people in", whereas we also need substantial unqualified seasonal labour; just this week the farming industry was warning that they aren't getting enough seasonal labourers due to Brexit and they simply can't get British people to do the work http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40354331. Note that European migrant harvesters long predate the EU, it's one of the reasons we have a gypsy population.
3) even if we do need better migration controls, that was perfectly possible within EU laws; for example Belgium have a requirement that any EU/EEA citizen is required to have a residence permit if they are staying over three months, with proof that they are able to support themselves economically and have suitable medical insurance. http://www.expatica.com/be/visas-and-permits/EU-EEA-and-Swiss-citizens-moving-to-Belgium_443311.html
Immigration is necessary to support our economy, with both skilled and unskilled labour and is highly unlikely to significantly reduce once we leave the EU, at least not without significant economic consequences. Even if we do need further controls or reduction in numbers that was perfectly possible within EU law, so leaving doesn't make a damn difference.
The fact is sucessive governments over the past 30-years have chosen not to invest in social housing, local healthcare and education and failed to address the significant loss of traditional industry that occurred in the 80's and wage stagnation following the financial crash. Rather than tackle these problems (which is hard and expensive) or change their policies (which is embarrassing and political suicide given the media atmosphere they've encouraged), they chose to let people blame the EU, because (sadly), most British people look down on Johnny Foreigner and it's easier to hold up a scapegoat than fix deeply embedded structural problems. It's the exact same root cause as led to the election of Trump in the US.
Australia gets one thing right. They let in skills they need, we should welcome those with valuable skills. But also be able to refuse those in we have excess as why welcome someone who will struggle to find work in there area where many other struggle. It simply just adds more demand for small numbers of jobs.
The EU framework already provides support for removing people who haven't found a job and don't have a way of supporting themselves within some time limit of entry, and we've never used it.
Australia gets one thing right. They let in skills they need, we should welcome those with valuable skills. But also be able to refuse those in we have excess as why welcome someone who will struggle to find work in there area where many other struggle. It simply just adds more demand for small numbers of jobs.
The EU framework already provides support for removing people who haven't found a job and don't have a way of supporting themselves within some time limit of entry, and we've never used it.
Yes, but that didn't stop Cameron pre-referendum to claim it was some sort of concession he got out of Brussels himself when it was already in place a few years back.
More proof that British politicians do not actually read what's put in front of them.... because they would never ever deliberately mislead people on EU matters right?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?
Defense (amongst many industries) moves very slowly with stuff like that. Assuming they have an XP based solution that works, why re-write it to use something else? It's likely to be re-using a lot of systems from when XP was a thing so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible.
I'd be surprised if it was vanilla XP though, or if the machines in question are accessible from a wider network.
There's probably systems on there running even older operating systems, too.
Legacy systems operate as constantly updating can render hardware and software unusable. As long as it's an internal network with no outside connection, and care is taken with what is brought in, it is secure.
The suxnet worm thing that attacked the Iranian nuclear enriching facilities supposedly had to be brought in on a USB, it was designed to spread wide and far on the web hoping to end up on a device physically taken in.
One need only look at what happened in Cologne with the New Years Eve incidents, and every day in Calais.
Strictly speaking Calais is an issue with a closed door immigration policy. Calais would not be a problem with an open border. And you are attributing what happened in Cologne to open freedom of migration of people. There is no evidence to suggest this. You could have a restricted and closed off immigration policy and these incidents can still occur. You are attributing two events and suggesting that they are linked. Peoples individual actions are important, where people come from is irrelevant and assuming that immigrants are the cause is just a form of bigotry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Again, encouraging immigration to pay for an ever growing, aging population is not sustainable. How do you pay for the growing population today, in 20-30 years time? Even more migration again? At what point does it just collapse? Open door, mass migration is not needed, we need migration targeted into key services with shortages, not just throwing the doors open to cheap workers which primarily suits corporations to depress wages.
Is a fallacy to suggest that immigration depresses wages. All the studies I've looked at indicate that within the errors there is no statistical significant impact on wages apart from a small (10-20%) in the upper middle of earners where the evidence suggests that there is a *slight* upswing in wages. Population will naturally balance itself out over time, it's a natural evolutionary trait. We have more aging people than younger people in the country and that proportion is growing. To sustain the 50+ years olds now into the future we need a diverse work force. Otherwise you will find you are working longer hours and retire later as there simply isn't the population to sustain the services we have come to expect. You are looking at wrong by thinking of the population in total. You need to look at it by age groups. As it stands we already don't have enough of a work force to maintain the elderly generation (lack of nurses/care workers and so on) in the UK. In 20 years time there will be even less people to support them and so on. If you want sustainable growth then the number of people paying into the system needs to equate to the number of people taking out of the system (which are vastly the pensioners).
DINLT wants the UK to go forward with some grand vision but you simply can't have that with growth of your younger population to support the elderly. Otherwise we all just end up supporting a vast number of older people and there will be no money for anything else. This is exactly the situation that Japan is facing (and they are even more anti migrant apparently).
The other solutions are to vastly cut the state services (so NHS, educations etc); shoot anyone that gets to retirement age; or force anyone under the age of 40 to have at least three children (of which none of these are palatable).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Is there any truth to the rumour that our new aircraft carrier runs on Windows XP?
That's a misconception. They're running "Windows for Warships", a rebuilt version of XP.
(May work for the company that supports it)
The problem is that XP has flaws that Microsoft won't patch or even search for. In the event of hostilities you can bet they electronic warfare will be targeted at these ships to take them down.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Legacy systems operate as constantly updating can render hardware and software unusable. As long as it's an internal network with no outside connection, and care is taken with what is brought in, it is secure.
That's not really possible though with a warship that needs to be in communication externally all the time, whether that is from GPS satellites to the local weather forecast.
Whirlwind wrote: Is a fallacy to suggest that immigration depresses wages. All the studies I've looked at indicate that within the errors there is no statistical significant impact on wages apart from a small (10-20%) in the upper middle of earners where the evidence suggests that there is a *slight* upswing in wages. Population will naturally balance itself out over time, it's a natural evolutionary trait. We have more aging people than younger people in the country and that proportion is growing. To sustain the 50+ years olds now into the future we need a diverse work force. Otherwise you will find you are working longer hours and retire later as there simply isn't the population to sustain the services we have come to expect. You are looking at wrong by thinking of the population in total. You need to look at it by age groups. As it stands we already don't have enough of a work force to maintain the elderly generation (lack of nurses/care workers and so on) in the UK. In 20 years time there will be even less people to support them and so on. If you want sustainable growth then the number of people paying into the system needs to equate to the number of people taking out of the system (which are vastly the pensioners).
DINLT wants the UK to go forward with some grand vision but you simply can't have that with growth of your younger population to support the elderly. Otherwise we all just end up supporting a vast number of older people and there will be no money for anything else. This is exactly the situation that Japan is facing (and they are even more anti migrant apparently).
The other solutions are to vastly cut the state services (so NHS, educations etc); shoot anyone that gets to retirement age; or force anyone under the age of 40 to have at least three children (of which none of these are palatable).
None of this addresses Howard's point:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Again, encouraging immigration to pay for an ever growing, aging population is not sustainable. How do you pay for the growing population today, in 20-30 years time? Even more migration again? At what point does it just collapse? Open door, mass migration is not needed, we need migration targeted into key services with shortages, not just throwing the doors open to cheap workers which primarily suits corporations to depress wages.
A lot of economic migrants who earn here and pay taxes don't necessarily retire here?
Otherwise working age families moving here, and having children is a good thing. If we aren't having enough kids to sustain our current system, then we have to attract and import working age families, and maintain that attractiveness.
At the moment it's a moot point, we've just made ourselves much less attractive to a huge pool of people.
I'm not sure what the nay sayers on here think we're going to do to sort this problem out. Do we think that were going to import more people from outside of the EU? How are we going to do that? I've got to ask, what is this obsession over immigration? I mean it makes no sense to me, and I live somewhere with huge immigration.
Whirlwind wrote: Is a fallacy to suggest that immigration depresses wages. All the studies I've looked at indicate that within the errors there is no statistical significant impact on wages apart from a small (10-20%) in the upper middle of earners where the evidence suggests that there is a *slight* upswing in wages. Population will naturally balance itself out over time, it's a natural evolutionary trait. We have more aging people than younger people in the country and that proportion is growing. To sustain the 50+ years olds now into the future we need a diverse work force. Otherwise you will find you are working longer hours and retire later as there simply isn't the population to sustain the services we have come to expect. You are looking at wrong by thinking of the population in total. You need to look at it by age groups. As it stands we already don't have enough of a work force to maintain the elderly generation (lack of nurses/care workers and so on) in the UK. In 20 years time there will be even less people to support them and so on. If you want sustainable growth then the number of people paying into the system needs to equate to the number of people taking out of the system (which are vastly the pensioners).
DINLT wants the UK to go forward with some grand vision but you simply can't have that with growth of your younger population to support the elderly. Otherwise we all just end up supporting a vast number of older people and there will be no money for anything else. This is exactly the situation that Japan is facing (and they are even more anti migrant apparently).
The other solutions are to vastly cut the state services (so NHS, educations etc); shoot anyone that gets to retirement age; or force anyone under the age of 40 to have at least three children (of which none of these are palatable).
None of this addresses Howard's point:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Again, encouraging immigration to pay for an ever growing, aging population is not sustainable. How do you pay for the growing population today, in 20-30 years time? Even more migration again? At what point does it just collapse? Open door, mass migration is not needed, we need migration targeted into key services with shortages, not just throwing the doors open to cheap workers which primarily suits corporations to depress wages.
I don't understand the point. It seems to say that we don't need immigration to replace our lack of birth rate because the immigrants won't have children so we get locked into a cycle.
1. The immigrants are having children.
2. Why would it be a problem to have immigrants in the future? Britain is a nation build on immigration. Where is the cause of collapse?
Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.
Must be tough for a casual observer to work out whether Nicola Sturgeon cancelled IndyRef2 given the current comment available.
Kezia Dugdale: no change
Jeremy Corbyn: u-turn
Willie Rennie: no change
Telegraph: u-turn
Ruth Davidson: no change
The Sun: u-turn
Politics.co.uk: no change
Iain Martin (Tory columnist): u-turn
Spectator: no change
Martin Rooney: u-turn
Scottish Daily Mail: no change
Daily Mail: u-turn
Great stuff.
In other news, with Corbyn forcing a vote on removing the public sector pay cap today, I'm keen to see what DUP do. Having taken 1bn extra, ostensibly for NHS and education, do they immediately vote with Tories to prevent doctors, nurses, carers, teachers etc from getting pay rises?
Less a U-turn, more pulling over into the hard shoulder to see if the juggernaut hurtling down the road is going to crash into the bridge, raining fire and misery on all nearby, or sail under it unimpeded on it's way to the Great Sovereignty Junction. After then starting up the engine again to either try to rescue the wounded, or catch back up.
Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.
And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.
If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).
Unless they where born here, or got citizenship there still citizens of native country by law anyway.
Contextually and cultural may differ but by letter of law living here not make you British.
Your still say Polish, just with leave to remain etc or Polish attending UK education.
Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.
And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.
If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).
Unless they where born here, or got citizenship there still citizens of native country by law anyway.
Contextually and cultural may differ but by letter of law living here not make you British.
Your still say Polish, just with leave to remain etc or Polish attending UK education.
Being born in the UK doesn't grant you UK citizenship. You must have a UK citizen as parent. That's what I was getting at. Sorry if unclear.
Interesting survey on a variety of current attitudes. Regards tax, it would be bad news for the Tories long term if attitudes were to continue in this way, as any move to tax and spend on their part would alienate a lot of their core vote. However, people often say one thing and vote another.
I think that the next election has been more or less set now, or at least, everyone's expectations for when it will occur. Two and a half years from now. Why?
The DUP have inserted the right to reexamine their agreement at that point. Sturgeon has delayed for two years after that point. Brexit is set for just before that point. There's been no move to oust Corbyn yet (indicating Labour regard this as a breathing space). And so on.
May's government will last to negotiate Brexit, and keep the place ticking over whilst the Tories thrash out her replacement and an electoral strategy. Then Parliament will dissolve, with Corbyn's assent, because he will want another shot now he's a built a little momentum (pun intended).
I recently watched the Theresa Vs. Boris docu-drama on the BBC about that last year's sham of a leadership contest. It's still up on iplayer.
I'm a political junkie, so yeah, I was in there, but it's a still a good watch in a fascinating car crash sort of a way.
These people are so lacking in self-awareness, so incompetent, so devoid or bereft of vision or talent, and the tragedy is that these people make the decisions for the rest of us
Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.
And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.
If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).
Most long-term immigrants naturalise at some point.
Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).
Howard A Treesong wrote: Again, encouraging immigration to pay for an ever growing, aging population is not sustainable. How do you pay for the growing population today, in 20-30 years time? Even more migration again? At what point does it just collapse? Open door, mass migration is not needed, we need migration targeted into key services with shortages, not just throwing the doors open to cheap workers which primarily suits corporations to depress wages.
Well it does but you are missing the point that you need to consider the ages of migrants versus elderly. We have an aging population. In 30-40 years time about 25% of our population will be over the retirement age. This will include a proportion of migrants. Since the early 2000s migrations has been roughly steady by about 250k to 300k per year. There's no particular reason to see that this will change in the coming years assuming things stay the same. As such barring any world calamity it is likely that this migration figure will remain roughly 'as is'. Our own natural instincts will mean that there is no such thing as 'uncontrolled migration' else we would have a million people one year and none the next. Given that we have roughly steady immigration. The vast majority are working age. Hence in 30-40 years the then immigration will sustain the now immigrants in retirement. The real problem is the reduction in UK births, as such the UK populace is not having supporting enough children to offset it's own pensioners. We are covering this shortfall by a sustainable migration that will support itself in future if you leave it alone, but it will also support the 'bump' in our aging population.
Now lets assume we suddenly try and control our immigration to the 10's thousands. Now we have a problem where the number of working people declines rapidly leaving a massive shortfall in the ability of the country to be self sustainable in 30 to 40 years - the population declines and a larger proportion of the population is required just to manage this older generation. All immigration does is maintain our population *in the long term* as those people that settle will then also start having less children as human populations have less children when they are in stable environments. The assumption that the population will continue to grow is based on the assumption that birth rates will not fall any further in the existing populace, but they will continue to do so simply because less children having less children means a declining population.
Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).
That depends on what you mean by naturalise? Many work, bring up families, use the local gym, rent/buy a house and so on. Is that not naturalised (though I really hate the wording as that implies there is some relevance in swearing an arbitrary allegiance to a certain piece of rock).
Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.
And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.
If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).
Most long-term immigrants naturalise at some point.
Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).
Seasonal agricultural workers move around Europe as the seasons bring work in different areas. They don't tend to settle in one area near one type of crop.
Cheap workers are needed for example in seasonal agriculture because there aren't enough British people available.
And when those workers have British children a lot of them end up educated and don't want to work the kind of jobs their parents used to do.
If those workers aren't British, their children aren't either (legally, culturally may be a different matter!).
Most long-term immigrants naturalise at some point.
Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).
Yeah, of course I wasn't refering to the seasonal pickers but rather the rest of the cheap workforce working hospitality and other unskilled labour.
Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).
That depends on what you mean by naturalise? Many work, bring up families, use the local gym, rent/buy a house and so on. Is that not naturalised (though I really hate the wording as that implies there is some relevance in swearing an arbitrary allegiance to a certain piece of rock).
I was exclusively talking in a legal sense, I don't think rights associated with arbitrary geopolitical borders should be at all meaningful but they're what we're talking about
Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).
Seasonal agricultural workers move around Europe as the seasons bring work in different areas. They don't tend to settle in one area near one type of crop.
Eh, yeah? That's exactly what I meant when I said their naturalising obviously hasn't been the pattern.
jouso wrote: Most long-term immigrants naturalise at some point.
Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).
Yeah, of course I wasn't refering to the seasonal pickers but rather the rest of the cheap workforce working hospitality and other unskilled labour.
Again, they're mostly EU these days and they've tended not to bother so much since there is (was!) no need. When they have it's usually in applying for permanent residency, which does have similar results but doesn't make them UK citizens.
I don't think any of this is right, incidentally. I'm a no-borders-at-all-as soon-as-possible guy.
Many do, but not so much the seasonal crowd, obviously, and it hasn't really been the pattern with EU citizens since there's been no need and they've had relatively straightforward permanent residency options (now thrown out, of course, and they get to reply for settled status or whatever it's going to be called!).
That depends on what you mean by naturalise? Many work, bring up families, use the local gym, rent/buy a house and so on. Is that not naturalised (though I really hate the wording as that implies there is some relevance in swearing an arbitrary allegiance to a certain piece of rock).
I was exclusively talking in a legal sense, I don't think rights associated with arbitrary geopolitical borders should be at all meaningful but they're what we're talking about
May's view on being naturalised though appears to require people from other countries to get a tattooed barcode on there arm. No one needs to be force naturalised. Just let people do and go where they wish.
There is a reasonable argument that private businesses and individuals are best placed to decide where people are wanted for genuine reasons, rather than the UK government or Mrs Miggins.
fair few more papers & positions than the UK has prepared thus far it seems.
Our lot better get their arses in gear.
How would we know? According to May and her supporters we don't need to know what our position is. Apparently it would be stupid to "reveal" your hand.
I think it shows how confident and well organised the EU is, and how weak and ill-prepared we are.
On the subject of Brexit, it's amusing to see people being shocked at Corbyn's decision to fire 3 of his shadow ministers over the single market vote.
Corbyn has been anti-EEC/EU since the 1970s, and in the grand scheme of things, Corbyn needs the UK out of the EU if he's to embark on his great nationalisation project.
If anybody was hoping that Labour would back a 'soft Brexit' ( I despise that term ) then they're in for a shock.
This is why so many of us who supported remaining are, to be honest, fething livid about what is going on because; a) it completely ignores what nearly half of the country wanted at a time when finding common ground and building bridges is desperately needed and b) there were plenty of leave campaigners prior to the referendum stating categorically that if you voted leave it wouldn't mean we would leave the single market. If they had been honest about what they were intending to do the vote would probably have gone very differently.
This is why so many of us who supported remaining are, to be honest, fething livid about what is going on because; a) it completely ignores what nearly half of the country wanted at a time when finding common ground and building bridges is desperately needed and b) there were plenty of leave campaigners prior to the referendum stating categorically that if you voted leave it wouldn't mean we would leave the single market. If they had been honest about what they were intending to do the vote would probably have gone very differently.
That's something we'll never be able to prove, but I've been saying for months that in the short-term, Brexit will see the UK go backwards, but IMO, the long term benefits are worth it.
To be fair to the EU, and I don't like to be fair to the EU, they have been honest and upfront about the four freedoms being non-negotiable.
Having access to the single market is not the same as being part of it. It's an important distinction.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: On the subject of Brexit, it's amusing to see people being shocked at Corbyn's decision to fire 3 of his shadow ministers over the single market vote.
Corbyn has been anti-EEC/EU since the 1970s, and in the grand scheme of things, Corbyn needs the UK out of the EU if he's to embark on his great nationalisation project.
If anybody was hoping that Labour would back a 'soft Brexit' ( I despise that term ) then they're in for a shock.
Hard Brexit is the only game in town.
I take back everything mean I've ever said about Corbyn.
This is why so many of us who supported remaining are, to be honest, fething livid about what is going on because; a) it completely ignores what nearly half of the country wanted at a time when finding common ground and building bridges is desperately needed and b) there were plenty of leave campaigners prior to the referendum stating categorically that if you voted leave it wouldn't mean we would leave the single market. If they had been honest about what they were intending to do the vote would probably have gone very differently.
I think the best thing to do is request asylum from (or migrate to) another EU country. Then you can move abroad as the population of England and Wales (Scotland will leave soon enough and maybe NI) decide that the best way forward is to build a wall, become a country of grouchy OAPs, and flush the country's and their children's/grand children's future (those that are left anyway) down the toilet whilst yelling non-sensible (or plainly incorrect) soundbites at each other. Still at least by being in the EU you can point and laugh at the idiocy of it all with pretty much everyone else in the world (apart from Trump supporters who seem to have a fair amount in common).
I'll say this to Shadow Captain and Future War Cultist: I know you're not great fans of Corbyn to say the least, which is fair enough, but when it comes to Brexit, I would trust Corbyn any day of the week to deliver Brexit over May, Bojo, Gove, etc etc
Corbyn has been on record since the 1970s with his opposition to EEC/EU and that level of opposition has not dropped one bit.
I disagree with Corbyn on a lot of things, but for 40 years, he's stuck to his guns on Europe and I can respect that.
This is why so many of us who supported remaining are, to be honest, fething livid about what is going on because; a) it completely ignores what nearly half of the country wanted at a time when finding common ground and building bridges is desperately needed and b) there were plenty of leave campaigners prior to the referendum stating categorically that if you voted leave it wouldn't mean we would leave the single market. If they had been honest about what they were intending to do the vote would probably have gone very differently.
I think the best thing to do is request asylum from (or migrate to) another EU country. Then you can move abroad as the population of England and Wales (Scotland will leave soon enough and maybe NI) decide that the best way forward is to build a wall, become a country of grouchy OAPs, and flush the country's and their children's/grand children's future (those that are left anyway) down the toilet whilst yelling non-sensible (or plainly incorrect) soundbites at each other. Still at least by being in the EU you can point and laugh at the idiocy of it all with pretty much everyone else in the world (apart from Trump supporters who seem to have a fair amount in common).
As I've said before, I respect EU supporters even though I disagree with them. A Remain supporter who voted on June 23rd, is worth a thousand leave supporters who didn't vote.
I sincerly hope that Remain supporters stay and help build our country's future. After all, it's your country as well, but if people have to leave for whatever reason, I respect that as well. Having lived and worked abroad, I know it's not easy, so they have my respect for doing that.
In my biased view, and I've always said this, the first 5 years will be tricky, becuase things will have to adjust to the new order of things, but in a few years time when things settle down, I think we'll be ok.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I have no desire to leave my country for the EU. If my country is sinking, I want to stay and help bail it out not desert it like rats.
The eagles prefer to soar to new roosts when the nests are get ran over.... If the UK want's to shoot itself in the bow, keel and hull for what is effectively ideological nonsense then you can't expect people that prefer to stay in a more inclusive, wider, tolerant society to leave the sinking ship rather be press ganged into doing it and try and rescue the situation for other parts of the population. That's not really 'rats leaving a sinking ship' it's just common sense if you think that for no fault of your own the ship is listing badly and about to try and go down with all aboard. If you want to try and stay and bail it out with a leaky bucket and rag then fair enough...
It appears that Corbyn isn't really listening or seeing what happened to May. So you've got a hard right Tory party or a hard left Labour party neither that want to see other points of view and sack people that disagree with them. In essence Corbyn isn't actually any better than May in terms of being inclusive. So he's rapidly trying to purge any people that disagree with his politics.
The problem with this is then you have two parties that won't compromise and we will just end up with the NI fiasco spreading into the UK. It's all well and good thinking it will be all right in the end, but this period is likely to end up being the most damaging to UK for generations and it's not likely that the country will recover over that time. Not simply because of Wrexit but also how the politicians are handling it all. Corbyn is going to get a shock when he wakes up one morning to find that a lot of people voted for him to stop May not because they really supported a hard left alternative. The likelihood is that if he was looking to get a massive majority for the same thing then May would have been the one gaining ground to stop Corbyn. As such I would recommend to anyone to leave the Country because it's shipping water really fast now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'll say this to Shadow Captain and Future War Cultist: I know you're not great fans of Corbyn to say the least, which is fair enough, but when it comes to Brexit, I would trust Corbyn any day of the week to deliver Brexit over May, Bojo, Gove, etc etc
Corbyn has been on record since the 1970s with his opposition to EEC/EU and that level of opposition has not dropped one bit.
I disagree with Corbyn on a lot of things, but for 40 years, he's stuck to his guns on Europe and I can respect that.
As would I. I'm on the fence regarding Corbyn.
What I don't like is how he's blatantly a Marxist, and though I do agree with some socialist policies (protect the NHS, bring back and build more social housing etc), I think he might take things too far. I also don't like the company he keeps or has kept in the past, the IRA, Hamas etc. He's a fan of some very repressive regimes like Venezuela.
Before this election, I'd always considered Corbyn to be more of a reformer, not someone likely to win an election and lead a Government. Someone who would purge Labour of the Blairite wing, and drag the party kicking and screaming back to its roots in the Left. I didn't think he could ever win an election but after this General Election anything is possible.
I don't particularly like or agree with the Left, but I think its important to have a stark and distinctive choice between parties. We need a traditional socialist party of the working class and working middle classes, just as we need a traditional social conservative party. This clustering of the parties in the centre ground (that gives rise to the phase "You can't get a cigarette paper between them!" does us no good.
From the moment Corbyn was elected to lead the Labour party I've been cheering him on, gleefully watching as he purged and marginalized the Blairite old guard of New Labour. I utterly LOATHE the New Labour Blairites and what they did to this country and elsewhere, particularly Iraq. I'll never forgive them, and until this election I'd resolved to never vote for the Labour party. I still didn't vote for the Party really, rather I voted for my local Labour MP because I liked him as an individual, he directly helped to create my current job, and the Tory candidate was insulting.
So in summary...I'm warming to him.
Also, I will say one final remark. Its always been my firm belief that Parties do not win elections, Governments lose them. We do not vote for the opposition because we like them, we vote for the least crap option to kick out the utter rotters currently in charge. I have no doubt that we'll be having similar conversations in 10 or 15 years time about how awful that Corbyn Government was.
I'm constantly bemused at how some people (not referring to anyone here, just generally in life) keep smugly pointing to the facts that statistically more young people and 'better educated' people voted Remain and Labour. And then blindly self-congratulating without cottoning onto the wider context/correlation of what they're saying.
That is to say, the fact that 50% of young people now go to University, whereas most old people did not.
In other words, plenty of older people are just as intelligent as the young 'uns voting today. They have alternative qualifications which would have been the equivalent of the generic degree now, and had to sit through much more selective and rigorous exams for the qualifications they do have. Formal education is great, but just because a 22 year old has a 2:2 in Psychology from the University of Kingston in reality does not mean that they're better educated or smarter than a 50 year old pharmacist who sat themselves through night school in the 1980's.
Frankly, the metrics of young people attending University now is so high compared to what it used to be that you could correlate virtually any activity/knowledge/behaviour primarily involving by young people and say it's technically performed by the better educated segment of the population. Young people are both more likely to have heard of the indie music group Seafret, and to also have degrees. That doesn't mean that two things are related though. The education doesn't make them more likely to have heard of Seafret , any more than it necessarily has anything to do with which way they recently voted.
The very basic fact of 'Correlation is not causation' seems to have passed a lot of people by. If more young people vote a certain way, it's a statistical inevitability that the 'better educated' segment will also vote that way. It's nothing to do with how smart people are.
Ketara wrote: I'm constantly bemused at how some people (not referring to anyone here, just generally in life) keep smugly pointing to the facts that statistically more young people and 'better educated' people voted Remain and Labour. And then blindly self-congratulating without cottoning onto the wider context/correlation of what they're saying.
That is to say, the fact that 50% of young people now go to University, whereas most old people did not.
In other words, plenty of older people are just as intelligent as the young 'uns voting today. They have alternative qualifications which would have been the equivalent of the generic degree now, and had to sit through much more selective and rigorous exams for the qualifications they do have. Formal education is great, but just because a 22 year old has a 2:2 in Psychology from the University of Kingston in reality does not mean that they're better educated or smarter than a 50 year old pharmacist who sat themselves through night school in the 1980's.
Frankly, the metrics of young people attending University now is so high compared to what it used to be that you could correlate virtually any activity/knowledge/behaviour primarily involving by young people and say it's technically performed by the better educated segment of the population. Young people are both more likely to have heard of the indie music group Seafret, and to also have degrees. That doesn't mean that two things are related though. The education doesn't make them more likely to have heard of Seafret though, any more than it necessarily has anything to do with which way they recently voted.
The very basic fact of 'Correlation is not causation' seems to have passed a lot of people by. If more young people vote a certain way, it's a statistical inevitability that the 'better educated' segment will also vote that way. It's nothing to do with how smart people are.
I think you're right. Many young people voted Labour, and these days are more likely to be educated to a degree level, but I do wonder if they will continue to vote that way.
I've been centre left since a teen, but only recently actually joined the labour party because for the first time in my adult life they seem like a significantly different political animal to the Labour party of the 90s. At the time of Blairs election I remember thinking, thank God, at last the Tories are out. I didn't realise we'd just voted in a different flavour of Tory. (I was politically ignorant at the time tbh)
Back on topic though, what interested me in the exit poll was the amount of working people who voted Labour. The only demographic that voted overwhelmingly Tory were the retired, every other economic strata voted Labour. That tells me that he Labour party are on the right track, and we just need to wait for the Baby Boomers to peg it before we get a Govt that finally reflects the aspirations and beliefs of the rest of the population that isn't claiming a pension.
I sat down and quizzed a young hardcore Corbynite the other day over a few drinks (in an amicable sort of fashion). What I learned was that they had no idea what socialism generally entailed, or any idea of socialist history and previous administrations of that political makeup. Yet they very strongly supported Corbyn.
At first they wanted to know why I'm not all over the bloke too. When I outlined how my issues with him however (namely, the shallowness of his proposals and complete lack of explanation as to how he'll handle the negative effects of his policies in a controllable way), they got quite thoughtful. As someone who'd listened to far more of his soundbytes than me, they agreed that he hadn't really mentioned any of the more complex factors/potential outcomes of his intended policies.
I can't help but wonder if that trend holds true across the youth generally, as opposed to the older members of the population. Political and economic history isn't exactly taught evenly across the population. I'm coming to suspect that the disparity of support for Labour (a much higher percentage amongst the youth than the elderly) is down to the fact that the older buggers have actually lived under a socialist administration. They have some knowledge, even if purely from an empirical level, of what it entails.
Whereas the youth? Not so much. All they can see is a bloke who can claim to not be part of the establishment, who actually has a different set of policies for the first time in forever, who promises them absolutely anything and everything is possible. It's a heady mix. The fact that John McDonnell is a proclaimed Marxist and wants to be Chancellor means nothing, because they don't actually understand (for the most part) the full ramifications which would result if he got the post.
See, I'm not personally against a socialist administration, but I need to have faith that they know what they're doing, that they've identified the things that have tripped up other socialist administrations in the past and know how to avoid/minimise them. And I can't help but wonder if many of the 40+ crowd are sitting in the same boat as me, and that's why they're so much more dubious/sceptical of Corbyn.
You see, you say that you found younger voters to be shallow and attracted to soundbites, but scratch the surface of most voters and that's precisely why they vote the way they do.
I've had countless conversations with supposed older and "wiser" voters, and they show the same level of understanding politically, of the tories.
A vague belief that Corbyn is unelectable and dangerous, but push them as to why, and they usually mention the IRA or Hamas, but have no understanding or knowledge of what was actually said or done, and in what context. Basically, answers straight out of the right wing press with no attempt to evaluate or analyse what's been said.
In general, I believe, that the overwhelming majority of the population is not politically savvy, and generally just responds to headlines and soundbites, whatever their age.
You cant just single out the young for special treatment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Many young people voted Labour because they bribed them with free tuition.
I see, that's the only reason is it? Nothing to do with any other manifesto pledge.
The Green party and UKIP also supported scrapping tuition fees, so why didn't they scoop up the youth vote?
r_squared wrote: You see, you say that you found younger voters to be shallow and attracted to soundbites, but scratch the surface of most voters and that's precisely why they vote the way they do.
I've had countless conversations with supposed older and "wiser" voters, and they show the same level of understanding politically, of the tories.
A vague belief that Corbyn is unelectable and dangerous, but push them as to why, and they usually mention the IRA or Hamas, but have no understanding or knowledge of what was actually said or done, and in what context. Basically, answers straight out of the right wing press with no attempt to evaluate or analyse what's been said.
In general, I believe, that the overwhelming majority of the population is not politically savvy, and generally just responds to headlines and soundbites, whatever their age.
You cant just single out the young for special treatment.
I don't disagree with what you're saying, I don't think we're working at opposite angles here. At the same time though, you have to concede that even if someone doesn't have a vast amount of theoretical political or economic knowledge, they can still have learned a certain degree from empirical experience; you learn that when the Tories are in cuts are rife, and when Labour is in not so much for example. By the same measure, those who lived through the 70's & early 80's would have a much stronger recollection of what socialistic government entails purely from the experience of having lived under it.
Likewise, if we had socialist government for the next twenty years, the youth of that point twenty years distant would have no real idea or experience of what a Tory government would involve, you know?
I'm not trying to single out any political age group for a shallow political understanding necessarily (if that was what came across, it wasn't what I was trying to say). Rather, I'm theorising more that socialism has been so very long departed from our political scene, that the only ones who have any knowledge of it are the academics and oldies. Whereas with New Labour/Tory style politics, even those without any deep understanding of politics still know something about it from all those headlines and soundbytes you mentioned.
Accordingly, I was just speculating if that accumulated experience amongst the oldies of socialist government could have lent itself to a higher degree of scepticism/interrogativeness towards the vague socialistic goals espoused by Corbyn and Labour right now. I reckon there are other factors too (the pessimism of age, leftover Cold War indoctrination, etc), but I was mulling it over as a potential factor.
The Radio 4 round table discussions with voters over a take-away meal where an eye-opener for me.
The "working class" voters were nearly completely unconscious of anything other than the identities of the leaders. They hadn't even grasped the main slogans like "Strong and Stable" which dominated the campaign in the early days.
The "middle class" voters were a bit better, but still surprisingly ignorant of many aspects of policy, and based a lot of their thinking on very high level concepts like who is the best leader.
From that angle, I think Ketara is on to something with his idea about general memories of life under different governments. I would say, though, that each period offers different experiences to different classes. The past 30 years have on the whole been pretty dismal for a lot of people at the bottom of the heap, and jolly good for the top 10%.
The Brexit vote, the election of Trump and the resurgence of Labour are all symptoms of a general rage of the disadvantaged at a system that they rightly feel has ignored them. The fallout from the Grenfell Tower disaster adds more proof.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To be clear, I don't believe this makes Brexit a "good thing", however we may be entering a new era of politics in which the establishment gets its arse deservedly kicked for its decades of neglect and policy failures.
I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
Has Ireland taken the position that the DUP deal compromises, or threatens the GFA?
Playing Devils advocate for a moment, considering the considerable importance of trade with the UK for Ireland, is it likely that they would threaten their own economic security for this?
I highly highly doubt Ireland would be willing to hack off everyone else in the EU and their biggest trade partner on top because a dozen odd DUP MP's are in an arrangement of convenience in the UK. Especially since it would be one likely to end within about three months of the deal being signed.
Ketara wrote: I highly highly doubt Ireland would be willing to hack off everyone else in the EU and their biggest trade partner on top because a dozen odd DUP MP's are in an arrangement of convenience in the UK. Especially since it would be one likely to end within about three months of the deal being signed.
You're talking about Ireland and England. Two countries both famous for hacking off their noses to spite their faces and both famous for their epic skill in pissing off other people. I have no problem picturing this.
Vaktathi wrote: I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
Pretty much. I already posted this link a few months ago but it never hurts to revisit it.
The UK has 13% of fisheries area but gets 30% of the fish quota. Every country has suffered under CFP because past fishing policies were just not sustainable. There would be no fish to catch at all if everyone kept plowing the waters like it was the 70s (we're doing that on Somali, Namibian and other African coasts instead).
So it's perfectly conceivable that British fishermen end up worse than before, especially because UK fishermen will be pushed out of the bilateral EU fisheries agreements with the likes of Morocco, Mauritania, Seychelles, Greenland, etc.
Vaktathi wrote: I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
Pretty much. I already posted this link a few months ago but it never hurts to revisit it.
The UK has 13% of fisheries area but gets 30% of the fish quota. Every country has suffered under CFP because past fishing policies were just not sustainable. There would be no fish to catch at all if everyone kept plowing the waters like it was the 70s (we're doing that on Somali, Namibian and other African coasts instead).
So it's perfectly conceivable that British fishermen end up worse than before, especially because UK fishermen will be pushed out of the bilateral EU fisheries agreements with the likes of Morocco, Mauritania, Seychelles, Greenland, etc.
That's all very well, but you're failing to take into account we are now so post-facts over here we can barely remember them, so, as long as we get our sovereign fishes back, we don't care. We are going to genetically engineer them all red, white and blue, and if a single one ends up on a plate anywhere from Marbella to Bergen. it's war.
Meanwhile, our respected Foreign Sec. calls for the very thing he voted against 5 whole days ago.
To the keen historians amongst you - when was Britain last run on such a chaotic, back-of-a-cigarette-packet basis as currently? I presume we are now talking prior to WW1 at least.
To the keen historians amongst you - when was Britain last run on such a chaotic, back-of-a-cigarette-packet basis as currently? I presume we are now talking prior to WW1 at least.
The 1970's. Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country. Sometimes he agreed, and sometimes he didn't. Chaos usually ensued either way. With the Labour Party as riven as it was, it certainly wasn't what you'd call smooth running. Everyone forgets the SDP and Michael Foot's later struggle today. Thatcher took a relatively strong hand with things, and Blair's majority meant that he could do what he wanted. Their successors have more or less held things in line until now.
The problem at the moment is that the British electorate simply doesn't know what it wants. The voice of the people is incoherent and confused, and that's being reflected quite strongly in the political system and parties. The EU is both oppressive and liberal, so we want out and in at the same time. We want a vaguely responsible system of fiscal government and to also have nice things, so we teeter from one political party to another in our voting.
The British public is on a journey of self-discovery again. You see it every forty to fifty years or so with reasonable regularity if you look back, it's what we do instead of having revolutions. It'll settle down within the next five-ten years, but it'll be chaos until then.
On another subject, one of Private Eye's entries made me laugh.
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Or that, y'know. The UK sold some of it's quota to other EU countries.
God I hate what is becoming of my country :(
2012 - Olympics, excellent bon homie. World welcomed.
Since then? OH NOES! OTHERS! PULL UP THE DRAWBRIDGE!
The 2012 Olympics was a dictionary definition of Bread and Circuses and Britain at its worst.
Local communities kicked out to make way for Olympic facilities, and once the show was over, these facilities, funded by the taxpayer, were sold off at fire sale prices to foreign spivs, who increased their profits by millions or billions in the case of those Arabs who bought the Olympic accommodation.
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
The fact Rupert Murdoch writing a nasty story in the Daily Mail doesn't reduce us to a three day week? That's a pretty big difference.
Vaktathi wrote: I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
Pretty much. I already posted this link a few months ago but it never hurts to revisit it.
The UK has 13% of fisheries area but gets 30% of the fish quota. Every country has suffered under CFP because past fishing policies were just not sustainable. There would be no fish to catch at all if everyone kept plowing the waters like it was the 70s (we're doing that on Somali, Namibian and other African coasts instead).
So it's perfectly conceivable that British fishermen end up worse than before, especially because UK fishermen will be pushed out of the bilateral EU fisheries agreements with the likes of Morocco, Mauritania, Seychelles, Greenland, etc.
That's all very well, but you're failing to take into account we are now so post-facts over here we can barely remember them, so, as long as we get our sovereign fishes back, we don't care. We are going to genetically engineer them all red, white and blue, and if a single one ends up on a plate anywhere from Marbella to Bergen. it's war.
Meanwhile, our respected Foreign Sec. calls for the very thing he voted against 5 whole days ago.
To the keen historians amongst you - when was Britain last run on such a chaotic, back-of-a-cigarette-packet basis as currently? I presume we are now talking prior to WW1 at least.
1820 were pretty bad. Economic down turn after the Napoleonic wars, anarchist mobs on the prowl in London, Corn Laws, Catholic emancipation, and Wellington as Prime Minister.
Wellington expressed surprise that cabinet ministers wouldn't obey him like his old soldiers
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
The fact Rupert Murdoch writing a nasty story in the Daily Mail doesn't reduce us to a three day week? That's a pretty big difference.
When Cameron was PM, Murdoch practically lived there!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: I mean...it's not like they ever gave those waters (6-12 nautical miles) up, they just let other people use them so UK could also use other people's. Now UK fisherman can't use waters of similar nature in other nations though either, and now everything rides under EU rules...which the UK is now withdrawing from. There's a big chance of that coming back to bite if other negotiations don't go well, and given the UK government's record on gambles of late...
Don't think for a moment we've forgotten our historic claim on the Chesapeake
We've still got the old blockade plans, and those New England merchants will force President Madison to give in to British demands
I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of Murdoch (understatement of the year), but I'd elect to have Murdoch outside No.10 in a sleeping bag before taking us back to the chaos of '70's any day. There's always going to be people with a certain level of influence over the government, but there's a difference between influence and control. Murdoch has the former, the Unions back then were the latter.
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
God forbid actually working people get a say in the government! Better leave that to the plutocrats
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
God forbid actually working people get a say in the government! Better leave that to the plutocrats
See, we do this thing called voting, which ostensibly permits the working people of the country to say who gets to be the government. We had an election just the other week in fact.
When you start throwing in other (unelected) factors exerting actual control (instead of merely influence) over the government, that's what most people would call a subversion of democracy.
Future War Cultist wrote: They're under eu regulations at present but that can be changed in future.
The London Fisheries Agreement predates membership of the EU, though since it concerns a lot of EU member states it is likely to come up in the Brexit negotiations.
To put it a different way, we could have scrapped the fisheries agreement any time we wanted, whether in or out of the EU, and no doubt our EU partners would have had something to say about it. However they definitely would have had something to say if the EU didn't exist anyway, because scrapping any kind of wide-ranging international agreement affects the members.
A distinction that makes no difference, if you will.
I don't like defending statements that I on principle disagree with but can we please try to debate genuinely? IE Be better than the various politicians around the planet.
We really need to send EDF packing. The nation that invented civil nuclear power reduced to this...
That suggests to me that the discussion is about, for example, being the first country to have a nuclear power plant contributing to the national grid in peoples homes, for example. Or one constructed for non Military or non Government related purposes. Particularly in the context of the discussion.
So arguing about inventing the nuclear reactor, or inventing nuclear power in general, feels, well, quite frankly, disingenuous to me.
And that's without me even knowing [i]who[i] the answer to the question is, but I would be quite surprised if it did end up being the UK, it doesn't seem massively likely.
Compel wrote: I don't like defending statements that I on principle disagree with but can we please try to debate genuinely? IE Be better than the various politicians around the planet.
We really need to send EDF packing. The nation that invented civil nuclear power reduced to this...
That suggests to me that the discussion is about, for example, being the first country to have a nuclear power plant contributing to the national grid in peoples homes, for example. Or one constructed for non Military or non Government related purposes. Particularly in the context of the discussion.
So arguing about inventing the nuclear reactor, or inventing nuclear power in general, feels, well, quite frankly, disingenuous to me.
And that's without me even knowing [i]who[i] the answer to the question is, but I would be quite surprised if it did end up being the UK, it doesn't seem massively likely.
The answer is the Soviet Union. Hence why that's what I wrote.
It was a New Zealander Brit who kicked off nuclear power by splitting the atom in 1917, and a lot of Brits were involved in the Manhattan Project, so the British can lay a good claim to be a big part of the multi-national effort to invent nuclear energy production.
Future War Cultist wrote: They're under eu regulations at present but that can be changed in future.
The London Fisheries Agreement predates membership of the EU, though since it concerns a lot of EU member states it is likely to come up in the Brexit negotiations.
To put it a different way, we could have scrapped the fisheries agreement any time we wanted, whether in or out of the EU, and no doubt our EU partners would have had something to say about it. However they definitely would have had something to say if the EU didn't exist anyway, because scrapping any kind of wide-ranging international agreement affects the members.
A distinction that makes no difference, if you will.
I think I can hazard a guess what might be going on here. The UK will have to form some type of view of how to manage fish long term. At the moment this undertaken by EU fish quotas. It is likely as part of the EU negotiations we will lose our very favourable fishing terms and percentages compared to other countries. As it stands we can also fish in EU waters. By withdrawing from the agreement we also have no wider access to fish near the shores of other EU countries. Hence UK fisherpeople are likely to lose significantly from Brexit negotiations simply because of access (not the huge ocean going ones mind you). To offset this my hunch is that quotas will be dropped (except in marine protection areas) in the London Fisheries Agreement zone. This has two 'benefits':- Firstly DEFRA doesn't have to spend considerable resources managing a catch scheme (given that the Department has staff numbers akin to one person and their dog). Secondly it gives local UK fisherpeople access to more fish that they have lost from losing access to wider EU fisheries. Thirdly it lets the government tell the UK 'we took back control' to our own fleets. The disadvantage is that these local seas suddenly become ripe for mass fishing, both by the individual ships (with less impact) but also by the huge trawler fleets. If this is taken forward then I'd predict that we might bumper catches for a few years but give it 30-40 years then the fish stocks collapse and we will have a repeat of the grand banks cod collapse all over again.
Of course the other thing very few people are noting is that the UK doesn't actually have a workable fleet to stop foreign ships fishing in 'UK waters'
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It was a New Zealander Brit who kicked off nuclear power by splitting the atom in 1917, and a lot of Brits were involved in the Manhattan Project, so the British can lay a good claim to be a big part of the multi-national effort to invent nuclear energy production.
Just to clarify (and to nitpick) no human was responsible for fission of atoms. That happens naturally all the time and there have natural nuclear reactors in geological formations as well...better wording would be "controlling the reactions in sustainable way".
We really need to send EDF packing. The nation that invented civil nuclear power reduced to this...
This is not a surprise. You have both the exchange rate and leaving Euratom that has caused costs to increase and uncertainty in the industry (with our own nuclear regulator completely under resourced to do the job). Secondly they were pushed to bring costs down. EDF almost always had an "actual cost" and "actual timeline" hidden from the UK government to ensure things got through. Then you wait a year until you have got past the point of no return (in reality there never is except politically) and then wait for the government to change something (e.g. Euratom) thaqt they the company couldn't have perceived and lo and behold the costs suddenly escalate. There's an unwritten rule in project management. If you don't review from the start correctly the costs and timescales then your best guess of the cost and timescales is likely to be 1.5x to double what you thought.
I don't think the UK fisheries will lose much by being excluded from EU fishery areas. The problem with the UK fishing industry is that it is basically a kind of cottage industry which doesn't have the capability or need to go into the Med to snaffle up big catches of anchovies, for example.
Our fishermen do pretty well at small coastal fishing like Cornish sardines (recently granted EU DOCG status,) mackerel and lobsters, and the bits of cod left after we mismanaged the North Sea in the 1970s, and so on.
reds8n wrote: ..so post the election certain elements of the Tory party are doing a bit of soul searching about what they need to do to attract people back to them.
Certain ministers are also lying to us about wages but that's pretty self evident so moving on..
I'm sure there's many people with a spare £20K or so sat around who would have voted for the tories but went for Corbyn instead.
It's a stellar argument that to avoid debt all you need to do is be rich, one's hat is truly doffed.
You only have to read the first sentence of the next paragraph to see that all this chap is advocating is the scrapping of inheritance tax. So much for a far reaching and visionary conservative appeal to the young, this is just some of exactly the same old Tory ideology.
But, tbf, the old duffer is a knighted ex-MP, ex-Minister of State first elected in 1979, who's clearly got his finger on the pulse of youthful public opinion.
Ketara wrote: I'm not exactly what you'd call a fan of Murdoch (understatement of the year), but I'd elect to have Murdoch outside No.10 in a sleeping bag before taking us back to the chaos of '70's any day. There's always going to be people with a certain level of influence over the government, but there's a difference between influence and control. Murdoch has the former, the Unions back then were the latter.
To be fair to the unions, while they went too far in their overweening pride and power, at least they were democratic organisations of millions of ordinary British workers. Murdoch OTOH is an American ex-Australian oligarch. Thus I am not clear why his influence is preferable to the unions' power.
reds8n wrote: ..so post the election certain elements of the Tory party are doing a bit of soul searching about what they need to do to attract people back to them.
Certain ministers are also lying to us about wages but that's pretty self evident so moving on..
I'm sure there's many people with a spare £20K or so sat around who would have voted for the tories but went for Corbyn instead.
It's a stellar argument that to avoid debt all you need to do is be rich, one's hat is truly doffed.
You only have to read the first sentence of the next paragraph to see that all this chap is advocating is the scrapping of inheritance tax. So much for a far reaching and visionary conservative appeal to the young, this is just some of exactly the same old Tory ideology.
But, tbf, the old duffer is a knighted ex-MP, ex-Minister of State first elected in 1979, who's clearly got his finger on the pulse of youthful public opinion.
That's not exactly true. Inheritance tax is a tax on the estates of the deceased. Tax on gifts potential affects people every year, not once a lifetime. (The main argument against inheritance tax is that a lot of fairly modestly "rich" middle-class people will end up paying it because of the high value of their houses. Then again, why not?)
That said, very few people are rich enough to be able to dosh out a lot of £3,000 tax free gifts a year, and I don't see any particular reason to let the rich dosh out even more to their over-privileged relations without them having to pay a decent level of tax.
If nurses and midwives are to get a pay increase less below inflation that the current one, the money has to come from somewhere.
To be fair to the unions, while they went too far in their overweening pride and power, at least they were democratic organisations of millions of ordinary British workers. Murdoch OTOH is an American ex-Australian oligarch. Thus I am not clear why his influence is preferable to the unions' power.
.
As stated before, the worst Murdoch can do is write a nasty article about someone. The worst the Unions could do was grind the country to a halt (power cuts or unburied dead anyone?). You say they were democratic. And they were. To a point. Then you have the various tales of 'Join the Union or get your head kicked in or fired', the rigged elections (which happen even now, Private Eye has been following McCluskey's actions with great glee), the 'jobs for the boys' union officials who look the right way, and lest we forget, the number of them that turned out to be in the pay of or taking money from a foreign Communist superpower.
Compared to all that? Murdoch is a kitten and the veritable bastion of democracy.
Unions are a bit like churches. When they work for a common good for the average man, they work beautifully. When they go wrong? They turn into dictatorial, violent, corrupt, and thoroughly unpleasant organisations.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think the UK fisheries will lose much by being excluded from EU fishery areas. The problem with the UK fishing industry is that it is basically a kind of cottage industry which doesn't have the capability or need to go into the Med to snaffle up big catches of anchovies, for example.
Our fishermen do pretty well at small coastal fishing like Cornish sardines (recently granted EU DOCG status,) mackerel and lobsters, and the bits of cod left after we mismanaged the North Sea in the 1970s, and so on.
That's not really the issue. Almost certainly deregulation will result better catches for all initially. But it will proportionally benefit the larger trawler fleets as they have both the peoplepower and fleet to benefit most from deregulation. They are also the ones most hit by not being able to fish elsewhere to provide more 'unique' fish in UK ports. However deregulation will mean that the larger trawler fleets will be able to start hoovering up all the fish near UK waters (Cornish sardines and all). It will all be fine for a while until you a hit a certain threshold and then fish stocks are likely to collapse as the over fishing has long term impacts like it did in the grand banks. For those that aren't aware in the 60-70s when large scale ships became viable, whole fleets of ships arrived in an extremely cod rich area in the grand banks and basically fished the area to oblivion. There was an assumption that it would just restock but the over fishing changed the area dramatically. The cod ate small sea creatures and kept them under control. With the cod decimated nothing stopped these sea creatures exploding in numbers. However these sea creatures ate the cod fry/eggs which meant that the few cod left couldn't repopulate the grand banks as all the cod fry just were swallowed. In a few decades of overfishing it completely changed the regions ecosystem (eventually we are likely to do this to a critical species to human survival and it's likely to be game over then). However there is a lesson here for the UK and I fear we haven't really learnt that lesson (noting Tories only listen to evidence when it is convenient, otherwise they "just have had enough of experts").
Unions are a bit like churches. When they work for a common good for the average man, they work beautifully. When they go wrong? They turn into dictatorial, violent, corrupt, and thoroughly unpleasant organisations.
Unfortunately the average person once given power seems to go a bit power hungry and will do everything they can to stay there regardless of how good it does the people generally. That appears to happen in all walks of life, whether that be in politics, unions, business, tv broadcasters and so on. There is a view that most people at the top are basically one step away from being psychopaths because to get where they are they pretty much have to tread on a lot of people and not really care about the damage they cause on the way). As such I'm not particularly sure there is that much difference between Murdoch and McCluskey. As for Murdoch's power he might not have direct control but I'm sure he has a lot of indirect influence and has plenty of dirt on people he wishes to control.
Whirlwind wrote: As such I'm not particularly sure there is that much difference between Murdoch and McCluskey. As for Murdoch's power he might not have direct control but I'm sure he has a lot of indirect influence and has plenty of dirt on people he wishes to control.
McCluskey is a different kettle of a fish. I'd agree there isn't much difference between those two today, I despise them both.
The question being posed wasn't 'Are contemporary Unions any better than Murdoch' though, but rather those of forty days yesteryear. To which the answer has to be that they were infinitely more powerful, more influential, and more damaging to this country than Murdoch could ever hope to be.
Whirlwind wrote: As such I'm not particularly sure there is that much difference between Murdoch and McCluskey. As for Murdoch's power he might not have direct control but I'm sure he has a lot of indirect influence and has plenty of dirt on people he wishes to control.
McCluskey is a different kettle of a fish. I'd agree there isn't much difference between those two today, I despise them both.
The question being posed wasn't 'Are contemporary Unions any better than Murdoch' though, but rather those of forty days yesteryear. To which the answer has to be that they were infinitely more powerful, more influential, and more damaging to this country than Murdoch could ever hope to be.
I don't disagree for a minute about the 1970s and Unions running amok, but the flipside also happened in the 1980s, and this was it:
A police force attacking like paramilitaries for the Conservative government. MI5 infiltrating trade unions and acting as agent provocateurs, and a massive cover up that took years to see the light of day.
I am of course referring to South Yorkshire police, their role in the Miners' strikes, and of course, their shameless attempt to cover up the Hillsborough disaster.
The Conservative government knew full well what was going on, but it suited their purposes to turn a blind eye. We know this from inquiries, memoirs, eyewitnesses, and papers released under the 30 year.
rule.
This is not whataboutery on my part, merely an attempt to highlight what came after the power of the unions had been broken.
reds8n wrote: ..so post the election certain elements of the Tory party are doing a bit of soul searching about what they need to do to attract people back to them.
Certain ministers are also lying to us about wages but that's pretty self evident so moving on..
I'm sure there's many people with a spare £20K or so sat around who would have voted for the tories but went for Corbyn instead.
It's a stellar argument that to avoid debt all you need to do is be rich, one's hat is truly doffed.
You only have to read the first sentence of the next paragraph to see that all this chap is advocating is the scrapping of inheritance tax. So much for a far reaching and visionary conservative appeal to the young, this is just some of exactly the same old Tory ideology.
But, tbf, the old duffer is a knighted ex-MP, ex-Minister of State first elected in 1979, who's clearly got his finger on the pulse of youthful public opinion.
That's not exactly true. Inheritance tax is a tax on the estates of the deceased. Tax on gifts potential affects people every year, not once a lifetime. (The main argument against inheritance tax is that a lot of fairly modestly "rich" middle-class people will end up paying it because of the high value of their houses. Then again, why not?)
That said, very few people are rich enough to be able to dosh out a lot of £3,000 tax free gifts a year, and I don't see any particular reason to let the rich dosh out even more to their over-privileged relations without them having to pay a decent level of tax.
If nurses and midwives are to get a pay increase less below inflation that the current one, the money has to come from somewhere.
What are you saying is not exactly true? That article was about a Tory peer attempting to say that the tories must attract the young, but then rubbishes and belittles social media and money trees and espouses cuts to inheritence tax as the key to winning over the young.
Is that not what you took from the article, because when I read it, that's exactly what it said to me.
The difference, to put it bluntly, is that one side is the government. The people we vote for. Your democratic, elected representative. Not some trumped up Trotskyite taking shillings from Joe across the pond. The minute that another unelected faction or group is wielding that sort of power over the country, it starts becoming more existential. Christ knows enough Union officials of the day were sitting there quoting Marx and portraying it as the people's struggle for revolution (some still do, in fact....).
If you set yourself up as an alternative power base and contend with a government, that government has to ultimately break you or be replaced by you. That's how it works, and the Unions ultimately instigated that. So I don't really have an issue with the like of MI5 infiltration, they wouldn't have been doing their jobs otherwise. Brutality is to be condemned no matter the perpetrator. I shed few tears for the Unions though, they spent no less than fifteen years gradually driving various governments into a corner until they felt they had to act like that. Had the Unions stayed true to their roots, to what they were founded for, to the spirit of the Jarrow March, representing their working men as best they could instead of playing red politics? Much distress could have been avoided.
Sorry, what? I'm not sure what =/= means in this context? Are you saying gifts are not equal to inheritance tax?
I was alking about the paragraph in the article after reds8n's quote,
Inheritance tax paid by families has now reached £5 billion a year. This is a tax on an assets acquired from taxed income. House prices have dramatically risen but the threshold for the tax has remained unchanged since 2010. This is a most unconservative policy which does not support the family. Surely it is time to change.
As far as I'm aware, many conservatives have sought to get rid of inheritance tax for ideological reasons. This old chap appears to be trying to dress that old ideology up in a way to make it appear as if it is purely to benefit the young.
Removing inheritance tax, which is a tax on unearned income, for the recipient, would mean a loss of £4.6 billion in tax revenue, and seeing as the threshold starts at £325k, it's not really going to affect the average household.
It will, however, affect sort of people who support and bankroll the conservatives, which is why this old boy is against it, the fact that it may help out the young generation of the wealthy is likely just a favourable side effect.
The difference, to put it bluntly, is that one side is the government. The people we vote for. Your democratic, elected representative. Not some trumped up Trotskyite taking shillings from Joe across the pond. The minute that another unelected faction or group is wielding that sort of power over the country, it starts becoming more existential. Christ knows enough Union officials of the day were sitting there quoting Marx and portraying it as the people's struggle for revolution (some still do, in fact....).
If you set yourself up as an alternative power base and contend with a government, that government has to ultimately break you or be replaced by you. That's how it works, and the Unions ultimately instigated that. So I don't really have an issue with the like of MI5 infiltration, they wouldn't have been doing their jobs otherwise. Brutality is to be condemned no matter the perpetrator. I shed few tears for the Unions though, they spent no less than fifteen years gradually driving various governments into a corner until they felt they had to act like that. Had the Unions stayed true to their roots, to what they were founded for, to the spirit of the Jarrow March, representing their working men as best they could instead of playing red politics? Much distress could have been avoided.
You make good points about the Unions of the 70s, but Murdoch is still a power obsessed, and highly influential scumbag, right now. It's not the power of the Unions that are the current threat, but the power and influence of unfettered oligarchs, and monopolies of the tiny band of super wealthy who are seeking to shape the country to suit themselves, to the detriment of the nation. They may not be as obvious, but power still attracts the power hungry, and we must make sure Govt is able to resist outside influence, from whomever that maybe. We need a new "Thatcher" to break the power of the oligarchs.
A new set of people are trying to control our government. Talking about the unions of the 70s maybe a reminder of past issues, but it also distracts people from the current threat. We don't even have a reliable media to expose the threat, as much of it is owned by the very people who seek to hold the reins of power.
Future War Cultist wrote: ...When I see these sorts of sad old losers with their Che Guevara merchandise I just think to myself, why don't you just fething grow up.
As much as the Conservatives shout about it from the rooftops, the power of the Unions in this country has been broken. The days of Red Robbo and the flying pickets are long gone.
Alas, the pendulum has swung the other way, and without at least a half-decent trade union, who is standing up for workers against the exploitation of uber, zero hour contracts, the shambles that is our railways etc etc
The difference, to put it bluntly, is that one side is the government. The people we vote for. Your democratic, elected representative. Not some trumped up Trotskyite taking shillings from Joe across the pond. The minute that another unelected faction or group is wielding that sort of power over the country, it starts becoming more existential. Christ knows enough Union officials of the day were sitting there quoting Marx and portraying it as the people's struggle for revolution (some still do, in fact....).
If you set yourself up as an alternative power base and contend with a government, that government has to ultimately break you or be replaced by you. That's how it works, and the Unions ultimately instigated that. So I don't really have an issue with the like of MI5 infiltration, they wouldn't have been doing their jobs otherwise. Brutality is to be condemned no matter the perpetrator. I shed few tears for the Unions though, they spent no less than fifteen years gradually driving various governments into a corner until they felt they had to act like that. Had the Unions stayed true to their roots, to what they were founded for, to the spirit of the Jarrow March, representing their working men as best they could instead of playing red politics? Much distress could have been avoided.
I don't disagree with this, but in the 1980s, South Yorkshire police, and other British police forces, were a law onto themselves, and it was done with the full knowledge of the government of the day, and not just against striking miners. . It's one of the reasons why I distrust the police so much.
There's a really good video art installation at Tate Britain on the Embankment. It takes nearly half an hour to watch, and covers a notorious police versus miners battle from the strike, re-enacted in the modern day.
Back when the Unions used to walk into Downing Street for tea once a week to tell the Prime Minister what he should be doing, or they'd cripple the country
How's that any different from Rupert Murdoch walking into Downing Street and doing the same?
God forbid actually working people get a say in the government! Better leave that to the plutocrats
See, we do this thing called voting, which ostensibly permits the working people of the country to say who gets to be the government. We had an election just the other week in fact.
When you start throwing in other (unelected) factors exerting actual control (instead of merely influence) over the government, that's what most people would call a subversion of democracy.
Doesn't seem to stop the rich and powerful from controlling the government outside of election day, so why shouldn't working people try to gain some influence?
r_squared wrote:
You make good points about the Unions of the 70s, but Murdoch is still a power obsessed, and highly influential scumbag, right now.
You'll get no disagreement from me there,
It's not the power of the Unions that are the current threat,
They're not an immediate 'threat' per se, but I would add the disclaimer that the likes of McCluskey are in the middle of trying to take control of the Labour Party (again...), and considering he operates in the same mold as those who came before, it is vaguely topical. As mentioned, Private Eye's been following McCluskey's shenanigans for some time; it looks like he might actually be about to get dragged to court for misusing funds and cronyism. Not much point in changing the system if it's a case of 'Here comes new boss, same as old boss', y'know? We want the pendulum to go from the right back to the centre, not a sharp deviation to the hard left.
but the power and influence of unfettered oligarchs, and monopolies of the tiny band of super wealthy who are seeking to shape the country to suit themselves, to the detriment of the nation. They may not be as obvious, but power still attracts the power hungry, and we must make sure Govt is able to resist outside influence, from whomever that maybe. We need a new "Thatcher" to break the power of the oligarchs.
Couldn't agree more. I think the Government is far too susceptible to the likes of PWC and other large corporations right now. I think the entire system needs re-examining from the ground up to an extent, from the length of Parliament (which should probably go up a year or two to permit more long term planning) to constituents having the power to yank out their MP's if they're not doing what they said they would. Not to mention the Lords.
ulgurstasta wrote:
Doesn't seem to stop the rich and powerful from controlling the government outside of election day, so why shouldn't working people try to gain some influence?
Their democratically elected MP's ARE their influence in the halls of government. That's the point of them. You can't have a Parliament with 70 million people in it, so we elect people to do things on our behalf. They represent the influence of the 'working people', as you put it. Certainly, they do it far better than a bunch of unelected Marxists in the employ of a foreign Government.
Unless you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that the likes of Arthur Scargill (the unelected bloke who was very happily lining his own nest with money from the SU and Libya) or Jack Jones (who swapped internal Labour files for cash from the KGB) better represented the democratic will of the people than their own MP's?
There's a serious argument to be made that our MP's aren't susceptible enough to pressure from their constituents. That argument is not best made by pointing at Unions of the 1970's and '80's as an alternative though.
Accept them as a flawed, reformable but necessary brake on Parliamentary power?
Consider the Labour landslide of 1997. Three Line Whip, and they could've forced through anything, absolutely anything they wanted.
The Lords are there to help prevent abused of power.
It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but without a serious political revolution (a non-violent one, mind) there's nothing we can do - the current system allows retired politicians something else to do.
In my ideal United Kingdom, each of the countries would have their own parliament with their own government (that includes England) who govern their own affairs and raise their own taxes. I think we're close to that already.
Then above that would be the democratically elected House of Lords (with a new name?) who control defense, foreign affairs, the currancy and all things that need to be decided at the national level like the Highway Code etc. There's about 100 counties across the whole of the uk. If you had a lord for each of them, plus one for the bigger cities, I think that would come to about 130-150 lords. Whilst English lords would make up about half of that number, the others combined would roughly equal it. Plus you can assume an unofficial north south devide within those English lords, hopefully meaning that power won't be too focused on one region.
These lords would also be elected on longer terms (at least seven years) to allow longer planning, so that whilst they are accountable to voters they won't be spending their time pursuing quick results rashly. I haven't ironed out a lot of the details but it's something I think about from time to time.
My idea is "The Peoples' Lords". This would be a senior house containing a mixture of members elected by proportional representation from lists put forwards by the various parties, and some members appointed from a list compiled by popular acclamation of the general public by internet voting. Anyone could apply to be on the popular list, e.g Jeremy Clarkson, your local primary school lollipop lady, or the Chief Rabbi.
The mixture would be 70:30 political to popular. Terms would be varied to ensure the country had a chance to elect and reelect members separately to the House of Commons general election cycle.
As a democratically elected house, the Peoples' Lords would have the legal right to block or recommend changes to bills sent up from the Commons.
My idea is "The Peoples' Lords". This would be a senior house containing a mixture of members elected by proportional representation from lists put forwards by the various parties, and some members appointed from a list compiled by popular acclamation of the general public by internet voting. Anyone could apply to be on the popular list, e.g Jeremy Clarkson, your local primary school lollipop lady, or the Chief Rabbi.
The mixture would be 70:30 political to popular. Terms would be varied to ensure the country had a chance to elect and reelect members separately to the House of Commons general election cycle.
As a democratically elected house, the Peoples' Lords would have the legal right to block or recommend changes to bills sent up from the Commons.
It would fail on a scale not yet seen before in government, save maybe the collapse of the Mayan Civilization. Stop and think about what you're suggesting, you want to add more idiots from the public to the Government, rather than less, and you want ot make it a popularity contest? and have INTERNET VOTING?
'Lord Lolcats wishes to speak on the subject...."
Picture Dakka and then picture all of them as your new House of UnLords. England would Burn.
Let me make a suggestion on how to 'fix' the house of lords. don't.
No, seriously, you're talking about an electorate that cannot be trusted to wipe their own arse being entrusted with the long term future of England. Something they've shown many times, not just Brexit, that they are utterly incapable of dealing with.
You'd have Lord Trump in the very first vote, and the abyss yawns below you from there.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: By espousing a political preference he's espoused since before he became an MP and all throughout his career as an MP?
I.e. populism.
Populism is not bad. You're thinking of demagoguery, which Corbyn is certainly not guilty of.
Again, when did I ever say Corbyn is bad, or a demagogue? He's simply our equivalent to Trump albeit from the other end of the political spectrum, an anti-establishment populist.
You're all missing the fething point, to get back on topic: with a "people's house" as Kilkrazy puts it, you would get a left wing "Lord Corbyn" , not a right wing "Lord Trump" because the political momentum and public opinion now is clearly with the Left, not the Right.
But he really isn't your equivalent of Trump, again, Corbyn would the the equivalent of someone like sanders, a populist left-wing politician who is also an experienced politician. Trump is a populist far-right wing politician who has absolutely no experience and have never before held political office.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think the name you're looking for is Nigel Farage, not Jeremy Corbyn.
No, its not. Nigel Farage has a fraction of the popularity of Corbyn, and Farage's popularity was fleeting. Are you seriously saying Farage is a greater populist than Corbyn?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: By espousing a political preference he's espoused since before he became an MP and all throughout his career as an MP?
I.e. populism.
Populism is not bad. You're thinking of demagoguery, which Corbyn is certainly not guilty of.
Again, when did I ever say Corbyn is bad, or a demagogue? He's simply our equivalent to Trump albeit from the other end of the political spectrum, an anti-establishment populist.
Except Trump is a demagogue, not just a populist. If he is just a populist he is a very bad one as he has failed to actually appeal to the majority of the American populace, or even the majority of the Republican party. His populism is entirely based upon prejudice.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think the name you're looking for is Nigel Farage, not Jeremy Corbyn.
No, its not. Nigel Farage has a fraction of the popularity of Corbyn, and Farage's popularity was fleeting. Are you seriously saying Farage is a greater populist than Corbyn?
You don't have to be successful to be invoking populist ideals.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: I think the name you're looking for is Nigel Farage, not Jeremy Corbyn.
No, its not. Nigel Farage has a fraction of the popularity of Corbyn, and Farage's popularity was fleeting. Are you seriously saying Farage is a greater populist than Corbyn?
I'd suggest he's a better fit for "Trump-equivalent" considering the absolutely epic proportion of BS he spews and gets away with. We're not going to agree on this though, so we might as well drop it now before we inevitably derail the thread again.
My idea is "The Peoples' Lords". This would be a senior house containing a mixture of members elected by proportional representation from lists put forwards by the various parties, and some members appointed from a list compiled by popular acclamation of the general public by internet voting. Anyone could apply to be on the popular list, e.g Jeremy Clarkson, your local primary school lollipop lady, or the Chief Rabbi.
The mixture would be 70:30 political to popular. Terms would be varied to ensure the country had a chance to elect and reelect members separately to the House of Commons general election cycle.
As a democratically elected house, the Peoples' Lords would have the legal right to block or recommend changes to bills sent up from the Commons.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: To be honest though, wasn't there a suggestion to make Farage a lord the other week?
A certain section of society continually supports his enoblement, however, I'm pretty sure that her Majesty would cheerfully use the sword to lop his head off.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: To be honest though, wasn't there a suggestion to make Farage a lord the other week?
A certain section of society continually supports his enoblement, however, I'm pretty sure that her Majesty would cheerfully use the sword to lop his head off.
They let the likes of Mandleson in...
I don,t think the standards are quite the paragons of virtue anymore.
For all his faults, Mandleson actually succeeded in being elected as an MP and was also EU Commissioner for Trade. He is certainly more qualified to be a member of the House of Lords than Farage who has held one elected post (MEP) and barely ever turned up to take part in his job unless he felt like making an idiotic speech.
They let the likes of Mandleson in...
I don,t think the standards are quite the paragons of virtue anymore.
For all his faults, Mandleson actually succeeded in being elected as an MP and was also EU Commissioner for Trade. He is certainly more qualified to be a member of the House of Lords than Farage who has held one elected post (MEP) and barely ever turned up to take part in his job unless he felt like making an idiotic speech.
Maybe qualified. But his reputation is hardly one as a honest, principled and such man.
Farage for his ills, also does in away represent a certain section of people in this countries view however too.
They let the likes of Mandleson in...
I don,t think the standards are quite the paragons of virtue anymore.
For all his faults, Mandleson actually succeeded in being elected as an MP and was also EU Commissioner for Trade. He is certainly more qualified to be a member of the House of Lords than Farage who has held one elected post (MEP) and barely ever turned up to take part in his job unless he felt like making an idiotic speech.
Maybe qualified. But his reputation is hardly one as a honest, principled and such man.
Farage for his ills, also does in away represent a certain section of people in this countries view however too.
The point is, while both men are dishonest, unprincipled men, Mandleson actually carried out his duties as a pubic servant.
I used to be dead set against the Lords (when I was a teenager/early twenties) and favoured abolition and replacement with an elected chamber.
I changed my mind when they blocked all of the draconian legislation that Blair tried to push through; I realised that having a parliamentary house that is NOT full of slime balls beholden to the tabloid media in order to get elected is quite a useful thing.
I would propose that the last few remaining hereditary peers are abolished, plus get rid of the bishops (or include leaders of other faiths on a proportional basis) and then remove the proposal of new members from the political parties. Having senior diplomats, business leaders and other people who have actually proved themselves in the real world is a good thing, but we need to get rid of it being a reward for supporting a particular party.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
Both make good sense. A chamber with mixed skills from business, to industry, doctors, law experts and more.
I think faiths should be in there too, providing a broad range of experience including maybe police, Military former commanders.
A broad basis in many issues that can see a wide range of view points.
Their democratically elected MP's ARE their influence in the halls of government. That's the point of them. You can't have a Parliament with 70 million people in it, so we elect people to do things on our behalf. They represent the influence of the 'working people', as you put it. Certainly, they do it far better than a bunch of unelected Marxists in the employ of a foreign Government.
Unless you're seriously going to sit there and tell me that the likes of Arthur Scargill (the unelected bloke who was very happily lining his own nest with money from the SU and Libya) or Jack Jones (who swapped internal Labour files for cash from the KGB) better represented the democratic will of the people than their own MP's?
There's a serious argument to be made that our MP's aren't susceptible enough to pressure from their constituents. That argument is not best made by pointing at Unions of the 1970's and '80's as an alternative though.
I'm well aware how representative democracy work. What I'm pointing out is that you seem to have no problem when unelected rich and powerful people control and influence the government, but balk when working people organize to do it.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
I have to say I have had similar ideas; a federalised UK with national parliaments for internal affairs and then two, smaller, houses at Westminster to deal with foreign policy, defence and other high level issues.
The one interesting variant on that I have heard is rather than a domineering English parliament is to have several regional parliaments covering similar populations to Scotland, Wales and NI. The article I saw suggested using the old Saxon kingdoms, plus London (as it is now so much bigger).
Certainly such characters might be nominated, but they aren't real people so they couldn't be elected.
I think there would be a certain amount of frivolity at first however most people are pretty serious about how they want the country to be governed. Things would settle down and sensible popular nominations would be made.
Trump is President. This is a very different position to an elected "People's Lord" who individually in my scheme would comprise about 1% of the total number of elected seats in the Parliament as a whole. I envisage the Commons and New Lords being the same size.
If Farage could get enough votes he could be nominated. I don't see a problem with that. It isn't a position for life and doesn't carry a patent of nobility from the Queen and so on.
I'm well aware how representative democracy work. What I'm pointing out is that you seem to have no problem when unelected rich and powerful people control and influence the government,
I don't? I'd appreciate a quote showing where I said those words. Because if I had, I'm pretty sure that a lot of other people would have jumped on it by now.
but balk when working people organize to do it.
Such as? You're being very oblique here. Either clearly state what you're trying to imply (likely that Union officials of the 70's in some way represented the 'working people' more democratically than their MP's), or leave it alone.
My idea is "The Peoples' Lords". This would be a senior house containing a mixture of members elected by proportional representation from lists put forwards by the various parties, .
I largely agree on this. A Lords made up of doctors, teachers, police, soldiers, businessmen, scientists, and so on would be a real democratic upper body. As opposed to being occupied by whoever chucked the latest establishment spivs a large cheque and the descendants of people who made their money exploiting everyone else.
BaronIveagh wrote: You'd have Lord Trump in the very first vote, and the abyss yawns below you from there.
More like Corbyn.
Corbyn is our version of Trump.
You keep saying that, but I really don't see it. How is Corbyn in any way near as bad as Trump?
Did I say that?
He's our version of Trump in that he's a reactionary populist. Doesn't mean he's "as bad as Trump", just that he's performing a similar role.
No Corbyn is our version of Bernie Sanders. Corbyn has held his the same belief for many years before it grabbed a significant fraction of the populations imagination (which for a large part can be put down to people getting frustrated that the people that got us into this awful mess don't have to pick up the pieces and pay for it). Boris and Farage are our version of Trump as they speak what they think is popular at the time and are quite happy to change if the population's view changes. They tell people what they want to hear in simple soundbites (immigration/EU is the problem of all our woes etc). Rest assured when things go down the pan they will still be blaming someone else that the populace believe incorrectly is at fault.
Great. This is part of why we have high employment.
But if it continues nous serons emmerdés.
Using your French while you're still part of the EU, eh? Not sure if you'll have that luxury post-Brexit.
There will be witch hunts in the street if used in the open....
Seriously though what it shows is that our production has stagnated since the crash. Regardless of the employment levels we are still just employing more people to do the same amount of work. Given that many are now in part time or zero hour contracts you can argue that all businesses have done (generally) is exploit the work force for the same output. I'd always be interested to see the statistics in actual FTE hours worked by the country rather than the raw employment figures.
jhe90 wrote: Both make good sense. A chamber with mixed skills from business, to industry, doctors, law experts and more.
I think faiths should be in there too, providing a broad range of experience including maybe police, Military former commanders.
A broad basis in many issues that can see a wide range of view points.
Sounds good to me! Just as long as they don't overdo it. Like I said, 800 is excessive.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
I have to say I have had similar ideas; a federalised UK with national parliaments for internal affairs and then two, smaller, houses at Westminster to deal with foreign policy, defence and other high level issues.
The one interesting variant on that I have heard is rather than a domineering English parliament is to have several regional parliaments covering similar populations to Scotland, Wales and NI. The article I saw suggested using the old Saxon kingdoms, plus London (as it is now so much bigger).
Good idea. Bring back the ol' Heptarchy with London added on top. The only issue is, I think there's some English people who aren't keen on 'breaking up' the country, even if it's not really breaking it up per say. I can understand their concern.
Rather interesting article from Richard Aboulafia on Brexit, economic nationalism, and its effect on aviation:
Dear Fellow Le Bourget Melted Tarmac Connoisseurs,
Spexit. I didn’t invent this funny word; it currently gets 49,100 Google hits, and refers to a Spanish EU exit. It’s not a popular idea. Even in Catalonia, where I am now, where just under half the population is pro-independence, open borders and the EU are still hugely popular. This is because the idea of economic nationalism is discredited here. The last guy who promised to Make Spain Great Again died 40 years ago. Spain was stagnant under Franco; even when the economy was okay it was a sluggish, inbred society. The local aerospace industry reflected this stagnation. As the UK confronts Brexit, it might want to reflect upon Spain’s experience.
I first visited Spain thirtysomething years ago, and the country was still afflicted with the dismal echoes of Francoist autarky. There wasn’t much innovation, since out-of-box thinkers were routinely exiled, or shot. The military was just beginning to figure out that the enemy was located outside the country, not inside it. The country’s aerospace industry was focused on building aircraft for national requirements. It seldom worked with global partners, and seldom built anything exportable. CASA’s corporate history, a lovely two-volume cloth-bound set, shows little work of lasting value being done by the company before the 1980s.
After Franco began his valiant struggle to remain dead (per 1975 Saturday Night Live), Spain opened up. So did its aero industry. CASA partnered with other companies in other countries, took more risk-sharing partnerships, and ultimately was absorbed by Airbus. Aernnova emerged as a noteworthy structures firm. ITP emerged as a global engine partner company, to be acquired by Rolls-Royce. Spain’s A400M and Eurofighter assembly lines may be the last of their kind.
Today, Spain produces many important composite structures, systems, and turbine components, but almost all for global customers. This isn’t the same as producing planes under license or building small props for local use, but it is generally profitable. Much of the country’s economy has morphed along similar lines; SEAT, for example, was like CASA for cars, and like CASA it is now owned by a global company (Volkswagen). That’s why nobody takes Spexit seriously. It was already tried under Franco, and it was dumb.
The UK is a different story. The Brexiteers promised to Make Britain Great Again. They won. And from an aerospace perspective, that’s intriguing, because unlike Spain, the UK’s aerospace industry has a truly glorious past. But it was seldom, if ever, a profitable past.
Worse, the UK Government shows no signs of funding or supporting a return to this past. The RAF’s F-35s are coming from a foreign line, with Pratt engines and no plans to restore UK fighter sovereignty. In fact, right after the Brexit vote, at Farnborough last year, the government announced big plans to buy AH-64Es and P-8s from Boeing, but with nothing for UK industry. The original Apache buy came with mandated local production by Westland (Leonardo today) and Rolls-Royce engines. This time, Boeing will rebuild the helicopters, and they will use GE engines. Similarly, the P-8 buy comes with no local content (other than what’s baselined on all P-8s). Britain’s long history of building maritime patrol aircraft – Shackletons and Nimrods in the post-War era – has conclusively ended.
Without a back-to-the-future plan, the UK aerospace industry will stay on its current path: as globalized as Spain’s, only much larger and more important (to the UK economy and to the world). All Airbus wings – over 1,200 per year – are produced in Britain, with their parts imported from all over the world. Some 90% of GKN’s business is outside the UK, with a similar percentage for Rolls-Royce and other UK firms. So, the future of UK industry depends on the terms of Brexit.
Yet the road to Brexit is not starting well. This month’s election produced comically disastrous results for Prime Minister Theresa May, who somehow managed to make opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn look like a serious person, which he isn’t. A weakened May still insists that “Brexit means Brexit” but seems to have no idea about how to handle the upcoming negotiations with the EU. They have two years (from March) to come to an agreement, and the EU has every incentive to make this painful to the UK, as a cautionary lesson for other would-be EU exiters.
The default outcome of these negotiations is no deal, or a hard Brexit. The UK would need to negotiate its own trade agreements, quickly, and hope that the EU would be generous with them. Without new agreements, all those aero components coming in to the UK could be inspected and taxed. All those UK wings and engines going out of the UK could be inspected and taxed. Engineers and workers crossing borders could need new professional certifications, work visas, and be subject to income taxes.
That’s just the start of it. Pan-European technology development funds would dry up. Air access agreements would need re-negotiation. The age of pan-European programs will likely come to an end, since Germany would be unlikely to work on future European military aircraft without UK involvement. Notably, in May Germany requested its first classified F-35 briefing. This month, El País reported that Spain will likely follow them.
The rest of the world seems to be slowly backing away from closed borders. The Trump administration has reversed every single daft Make America Great Again anti-trade idea it ever proposed, particularly the ghastly Border Adjustment Tax (more at tinyurl.com/yb52qqfa). France’s Emmanuel Macron campaigned and won in May on a globalization agenda. Germany’s Angela Merkel and Canada’s Justin Trudeau are proving able champions for the cause too. Only Theresa May’s Britain is still eagerly paddling towards the economic nationalism waterfall.
Almost everyone in Spain knows that Spanish aerospace can’t go back to the old days. I’m not completely sure that everyone in the UK, particularly in government, has quite absorbed that lesson. It is highly unlikely that a hard Brexit will be an extinction-level event for UK aerospace. But it’s deeply unpleasant to watch them take that chance.
June Aircraft Binder updates include the F-35, V-22, and 737/P-8 reports, and the Regional Aircraft overview. There’s a new Cirrus Vision Jet report too. Have a great month.
Yours, ‘Til A Brexited Westland Helicopters Creates Another 1980s-Type UK Political Crisis,
Richard Aboulafia
I would propose that the last few remaining hereditary peers are abolished, plus get rid of the bishops (or include leaders of other faiths on a proportional basis[i]) and then remove the proposal of new members from the political parties.
That'd be tremendous fun just for the right tearing itself inside out at the number of Muslim representatives (though I'm not sure how you'd select them since they don't have a hierarchical structure of celebrants).
jhe90 wrote: Both make good sense. A chamber with mixed skills from business, to industry, doctors, law experts and more.
I think faiths should be in there too, providing a broad range of experience including maybe police, Military former commanders.
A broad basis in many issues that can see a wide range of view points.
Sounds good to me! Just as long as they don't overdo it. Like I said, 800 is excessive.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
I have to say I have had similar ideas; a federalised UK with national parliaments for internal affairs and then two, smaller, houses at Westminster to deal with foreign policy, defence and other high level issues.
The one interesting variant on that I have heard is rather than a domineering English parliament is to have several regional parliaments covering similar populations to Scotland, Wales and NI. The article I saw suggested using the old Saxon kingdoms, plus London (as it is now so much bigger).
Good idea. Bring back the ol' Heptarchy with London added on top. The only issue is, I think there's some English people who aren't keen on 'breaking up' the country, even if it's not really breaking it up per say. I can understand their concern.
There's two things I like about the heptarchy idea; one is that I've read that it is very difficult to get a cohesive society significantly larger than ~5 million people. If you look at other federalised countries, this is about where their states come out (with a few exceptions). Dividing England's 40-odd million outside of London into 7 gets you into this ballpark. The second thing is that I think/hope that by using very traditional divisions (Mercia, Wessex, etc.) it would be easier for people to get behind it, rather than the "new North-Eastern assembly", or whatever tepid name the politicians would come up with.
jhe90 wrote: Both make good sense. A chamber with mixed skills from business, to industry, doctors, law experts and more.
I think faiths should be in there too, providing a broad range of experience including maybe police, Military former commanders.
A broad basis in many issues that can see a wide range of view points.
Sounds good to me! Just as long as they don't overdo it. Like I said, 800 is excessive.
Maybe my idea can be repurposed for a lower chamber of UKMPs, keeping the unelected upper chamber too.
I have to say I have had similar ideas; a federalised UK with national parliaments for internal affairs and then two, smaller, houses at Westminster to deal with foreign policy, defence and other high level issues.
The one interesting variant on that I have heard is rather than a domineering English parliament is to have several regional parliaments covering similar populations to Scotland, Wales and NI. The article I saw suggested using the old Saxon kingdoms, plus London (as it is now so much bigger).
Good idea. Bring back the ol' Heptarchy with London added on top. The only issue is, I think there's some English people who aren't keen on 'breaking up' the country, even if it's not really breaking it up per say. I can understand their concern.
There's two things I like about the heptarchy idea; one is that I've read that it is very difficult to get a cohesive society significantly larger than ~5 million people. If you look at other federalised countries, this is about where their states come out (with a few exceptions). Dividing England's 40-odd million outside of London into 7 gets you into this ballpark. The second thing is that I think/hope that by using very traditional divisions (Mercia, Wessex, etc.) it would be easier for people to get behind it, rather than the "new North-Eastern assembly", or whatever tepid name the politicians would come up with.
I completely agree. The more people that are involved in a democracy, the less it functions. The ancient Greeks knew that. If this was to work it would require England to be regionalised. But as you say, by using the old kingdoms, it better appeals to that sense of national pride.
I think this would be so much more healthy for the country as a whole, because the regions won't be bolted to London. Plus, in the higher parliament they can focus on the bigger issues, leaving the smaller issues to the people actually affected by them. I reckon we could get that higher parliament down to about 200 members if you used a guide of about 350,000 people (half of what a us congressional district represents)
I don't think we have a problem of too much or too little democracy and representation. We have a problem with fair democratic representation (FPTP) and with providing the level of effective government that the people actually want.
We already have local democracy and government down to the level of the parish. These bodies (e.g. Henley-on-Thames Town Council) are woefully under-powered when it comes to the kind of local issues they ought to be allowed to handle.
The regional assemblies proposed for the North were unpopular. The new regional Mayors weren't asked for so much as imposed by CentGov diktat. The Police and Crime Commissioners also remain dismally unpopular.
The London Mayor was popular largely because the office did a lot to bring back the London County Council level of government (that Thatcher abolished for being too left-wing.)
The Welsh, Scottish and N Irish assemblies seem to have been popular because they were asked for by local people.
Even with these points in mind, I still believe democracy is "the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried from time to time." We'll never get it perfect, but we also don't have to put up with the precise format we have right now.
Be careful what you wish for, though. The people that end up in local municipal governments or the like usually aren't the sharpest knives in the box, and if they are they usually move on to higher-level politics.
Wouldn't it be ironic that a Nissan or Toyota car made in Japan will enter the EU tariff-free while one made in Sunderland or Derbyshire will have to pay?
And yet they're not part of the EU. It demonstrates that despite the short term cost, it is likely that we can get a free trade deal between the EU and UK that more or less satisfies everyone.
Thank you Japan for showing us that it's perfectly possible to have a free trade agreement without having to resort to a political union. You've given us a template to work with for the future.
Ketara wrote: And yet they're not part of the EU. It demonstrates that despite the short term cost, it is likely that we can get a free trade deal between the EU and UK that more or less satisfies everyone.
No one disputes that. It only takes that the UK figures out exactly what kind of deal they want. All options are on the table.
There was a very interesting address Michel Barnier on the subject
But there are also a few certainties. The UK will become a third country at the end of March 2019. The UK government has defined a number of "red lines" for the future relationship:
- no more free movement of EU citizens,
- full autonomy over UK laws,
- autonomy to conclude own trade agreements,
- no role for the European Court of Justice.
This implies leaving the single market and leaving the EU Customs Union. On the EU side, we made three things clear:
- The free movement of persons, goods, services and capital are indivisible. We cannot let the single market unravel.
- There can be no sector by sector participation in the single market: you cannot leave the single market and then opt-in to those sectors you like most – say the automobile industry and financial services. You cannot be half-in and half-out of the single market.
- The EU must maintain full sovereignty for deciding regulations: the EU is not only a big marketplace. It is also an economic and social community where we adopt common standards. All third countries must respect our autonomy to set rules and standards. And I say this at the moment when the UK has decided to leave this community and become a third country.
These three points were already made clear by the European Council. But I am not sure whether they have been fully understood across the Channel.
I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and keep all of its benefits – that is not possible. I have heard some people in the UK argue that one can leave the single market and build a customs union to achieve "frictionless trade" – that is not possible.
The decision to leave the EU has consequences. And we have to explain to citizens, businesses and civil society on both sides of the Channel what these consequences mean for them.
Let me be clear: these consequences are the direct result of the choices made by the UK, not by the EU. There is no punishment for Brexit. And of course no spirit of revenge. Brexit has a cost, also for business in the EU27. Business should assess, with lucidity, the negative consequences of the UK's choice on trade and investment. And prepare to manage them.
There were free trade agreements before the Japan-EU deal, and before the EU.
The problem for the UK is whether/how quickly we can make new agreements to replace the ones we are getting ourselves out of (such as the Japan-EU agreement.)
The first one we need is with the EU. It will of necessity be less favourable than what we have got right now, so we will need to make some other agreements (with Japan, Canada, South Korea, etc.) to recover the trade we will have lost. We can't start doing that until after leaving the EU, so we will be playing catch-up.
Kilkrazy wrote: There were free trade agreements before the Japan-EU deal, and before the EU.
The problem for the UK is whether/how quickly we can make new agreements to replace the ones we are getting ourselves out of (such as the Japan-EU agreement.)
The UK can sign a free trade agreement with the EU very quickly. The starting EU position is pretty much CETA which means minimal disturbance for goods, though services will take a hit.
Future War Cultist wrote: Thank you Japan for showing us that it's perfectly possible to have a free trade agreement without having to resort to a political union. You've given us a template to work with for the future.
The problem that's being missed is that there are also geographic issues to be considered. What we have now is 'open trade' in that any goods or services can be bought and sold tariff free. There are no limitations (barring everyone has to meet the same standards set and negotiated by all the EU nations). A free trade agreement is likely to have some, if not many, restrictions and these will be based on what the EU wants (given how poorly the UK has started I doubt the UK needs to worry about what it wants!). As such free trade agreements are what both parties can come to an agreement on and is in their best interest. For example Japan wants EU food and we want their high tech goods. The competition in these areas is *relatively* low hence both sides benefit from no duties on these goods. However it won't include items where the individual countries want to protect their own industries. For Canada and Japan the simple distances themselves will mean some goods aren't worth exporting so far compared to manufacturing locally (e.g. cars). However for example the CETA excludes poultry and eggs.
However the UK is geographically a lot closer and therefore more exposed to desires to protect markets because there is no issue of distance. We might get free trade on whiskey and shortbread biscuits as it is not an area where there is competition. However cars, food, banking etc all have hubs elsewhere in the EU and it is likely for a lot of these there is going to the some protectionism of the EUs own people/businesses. The EU will not want to see, for example, the UK flooding the EU with rapeseed oil at cheap prices because they take a weak approach to environment protection (such as removing the ban on neonic pesticides) whilst the EU keeps that ban and hence puts it's own farmers at a disadvantage.
Not only would we not want to copy CETA because of the impacts on the services but the EU will not want to copy it because of impacts on them.
The idea that some think we can just copy and paste other agreements simply isn't going to work.
And bizarrely despite people wanting more control we are likely to get less overall. The products we sell to the EU will still have to meet their regulations and checks (which businesses will have to pay to evidence that they are) before they go free trade. We are giving up our position to negotiate what these should be. Whatever the EU decide we will have to comply with. That is less control as the UK then has absolutely no say on this whatsoever simply because of the amount of trade we do with the EU.
Kilkrazy wrote: International financial services accounts for 16% of UK GDP, so that's a deal we won't want to sign very quickly.
Apparently that's a small price to pay for sovereignty.
Yeah, kind of. You're free to personally prioritise maximum economic returns above all else, but not everyone necessarily subscribes to so capitalistic a view of the world. Doesn't make either view wrong or right. Just different. Different isn't always bad.
Kilkrazy wrote: International financial services accounts for 16% of UK GDP, so that's a deal we won't want to sign very quickly.
Apparently that's a small price to pay for sovereignty.
Yeah, kind of. You're free to personally prioritise maximum economic returns above all else, but not everyone necessarily subscribes to so capitalistic a view of the world. Doesn't make either view wrong or right. Just different. Different isn't always bad.
Which is fine, but that would have made for a rather different leave campaign.
Kilkrazy wrote: International financial services accounts for 16% of UK GDP, so that's a deal we won't want to sign very quickly.
Apparently that's a small price to pay for sovereignty.
Yeah, kind of. You're free to personally prioritise maximum economic returns above all else, but not everyone necessarily subscribes to so capitalistic a view of the world. Doesn't make either view wrong or right. Just different. Different isn't always bad.
Which is fine, but that would have made for a rather different leave campaign.
With all due respect,in the same way that the remain campaign didn't have much substance behind its advertising, the inability to conceptualise that there isn't a 'right' answer is (in my limited empirical experience) something that Remainers seem to have a far harder time grasping. The vast majority of those I've met or read that were in favour of Leave were quite happy to concede that there were many benefits to staying within the EU. Whereas the concept that there can be benefits outside of it, or that there are other concerns than purely economic ones, seems to elude most people (that I have encountered) who voted to remain within it.
Speaking as a liberal (which is what, at the end of the day, I think I identify as most), those of a liberal inclination were most likely to vote remain ( I believe that view is borne out by various surveys). And liberals tends to be the worst sort of hypocrites. Free speech is okay but only if you think like us, violence is to be abhorred unless you're punching Neo-Nazi's, and so forth. Because we believe we're morally right, there's a terrible habit of condescending to people who think differently, because if those poor fellows had all the facts and their heads on straight, they'd agree with you of course! It's a more patronising form of the hardcore left's 'If you disagree with us you must be a traitor to the people' mentality.
C.S. Lewis had a great quote for it:-
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Kilkrazy wrote: International financial services accounts for 16% of UK GDP, so that's a deal we won't want to sign very quickly.
Apparently that's a small price to pay for sovereignty.
Yeah, kind of. You're free to personally prioritise maximum economic returns above all else, but not everyone necessarily subscribes to so capitalistic a view of the world. Doesn't make either view wrong or right. Just different. Different isn't always bad.
Which is fine, but that would have made for a rather different leave campaign.
With all due respect,in the same way that the remain campaign didn't have much substance behind its advertising, the inability to conceptualise that there isn't a 'right' answer is (in my limited empirical experience) something that Remainers seem to have a far harder time grasping. The vast majority of those I've met or read that were in favour of Leave were quite happy to concede that there were many benefits to staying within the EU. Whereas the concept that there can be benefits outside of it, or that there are other concerns than purely economic ones, seems to elude most people (that I have encountered) who voted to remain within it.
Speaking as a liberal (which is what, at the end of the day, I think I identify as most), those of a liberal inclination were most likely to vote remain ( I believe that view is borne out by various surveys). And liberals tends to be the worst sort of hypocrites. Free speech is okay but only if you think like us, violence is to be abhorred unless you're punching Neo-Nazi's, and so forth. Because we believe we're morally right, there's a terrible habit of condescending to people who think differently, because if those poor fellows had all the facts and their heads on straight, they'd agree with you of course! It's a more patronising form of the hardcore left's 'If you disagree with us you must be a traitor to the people' mentality.
C.S. Lewis had a great quote for it:-
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Can we just lay off the liberal/ lefty stereotypes? It gets boring and tedious as feth having to read this self righteous bollocks, yet again.
I read somewhere else that there's another court motion going through to try and make it possible for him to be taken to court over it. Who knows? Maybe it'll even work.
Given it has taken over 15 years and 3(?) public inquiries to unofficially confirm what most of us knew in 2002 -- that Blair lied to get the UK into the war -- I doubt there will be any repercussions for anyone.
The Grenfell Inquiry has a good chance of going down the same route.
Another point of interest is inevitable election two years distant.
Corbyn is in the middle of solidifying his grip on the party. He was quite washed up beforehand, his Momentum campaign had stalled, and he'd reached deadlock. Now that he's gained a handful of seats and built up some steam on the campaign trail, the long awaited purges of the disloyal are starting to manifest. For example, after Corbyn's whitewash of the anti-semitism issue, Luciana Berger spoke out against him. Now she's on the firing line. Meanwhile he sacked three members of his frontbench the other day for not siding with him on Brexit.
Corbyn will likely have a much more compliant, and hard left party in two years time. Especially if McCluskey manages to fight off the legal challenges he's currently facing over cronyism and election rigging.
The Lib Dems meanwhile, seem to be falling behind Cable's candidateship. Frankly, with Swinson announcing they won't stand, Cable's their only real heavyweight. But he's well loved, and generally a man of integrity. He only got fired before because he went out of his way to thwart Murdoch, and got burned for it by due process. He's also quite smart (he predicted the economic crash before it happened) and quite nice in person.
The Tories have to pick out May's successor. Practically everyone in the Cabinet considers themselves fitting heirs, from Fox to Gove to Boris. How many of them really have the chops though? At the moment, Ruth Davidson is the most popular Tory in polls, and she did a cracking job up North, but is unlikely to abandon Holyrood. Davis is second in terms of public popularity, but whether or not his bid is successful will be tightly linked to how we do out of Brexit. If it's a success, he'll be boosted beyond any of his would be rivals, but if it's a failure? He'll burn with it and the greasy crew (Gove, Johnson, Fox, Hunt, Rudd, & Leadsom) will be left to fight it out.
If Brexit is reasonable, and Corbyn pulls his thumb out his arse to start articulating some more decent well thought out detail about his utopian plans? I'll be hard pressed personally to pick between Davis, Corbyn, and ol' Vince. I think a campaign between those three would generally be quite gentlemanly, and very interesting.
I can see a second EU referendum coming. Once the Tories finally admit we can't have our cake and eat it, and that pretty much everything Vote Leave promised was bovine excretia.
In short, they know they now have to carry the can, and do so from a seriously weakened position at home. All May did with the election was secure her place as the scapegoat for when it all blows up in our face. Whether that's crashing out with no deal and tanking our economy in the name of satisfying a handful of extremist backbenchers, or getting us a truly one-sided deal.
That'll be when we go back to the Polls, and with a little luck, call the whole debacle off.
Is it not a little galling to see that Corbyn is moving to banish the opposition from within his own party when he himself was a serial rebel for decades? That's the least of my problems with him though.
And I accept the fact that we probably are going to have a second referendum on the EU at some point. But I'll still vote to leave. I don't like where it's going and to come back now will have us in a position of weakness. And again, I don't see it lasting another decade anyway, and that's at best.
Ketara wrote: With all due respect,in the same way that the remain campaign didn't have much substance behind its advertising, the inability to conceptualise that there isn't a 'right' answer is (in my limited empirical experience) something that Remainers seem to have a far harder time grasping. The vast majority of those I've met or read that were in favour of Leave were quite happy to concede that there were many benefits to staying within the EU. Whereas the concept that there can be benefits outside of it, or that there are other concerns than purely economic ones, seems to elude most people (that I have encountered) who voted to remain within it.
There are good and bad consequences for everything. A nuclear war will have ample opportunities for the scrap metal and health care sectors. If you break both legs you can learn to play the guitar.
That still doesn't mean nuclear war or breaking your legs are any good in themselves, it just means people will cope and carry on.
The remain campaign did a poor job of communicating the benefits of staying in the EU (for the most part because they were the same people who were happy to pin any of their shortcomings while in government to those bad guys in Brussels) but the leave campaign dismissed everything they didn't like hearing about as project fear. I'll take incompetence over wilful deception any time.
I don't think there is a metric for success of Brexit.
Obviously it can easily turn into a huge mess, which is how it looks at the moment. But, assuming we get out on time without a lot of ructions and get a half-decent trade deal, we have to wait five to 10 years to see how well the government and the economy will bear up to the challenges (or rise to the opportunities) of the UK doing its own trade deals.
This takes maybe three parliaments, giving the electorate many opportunities to dish out spankings left and right depending on the public mood of the day.
Future War Cultist wrote: Is it not a little galling to see that Corbyn is moving to banish the opposition from within his own party when he himself was a serial rebel for decades? That's the least of my problems with him though.
Why should he give time and seats to party members who wants to see him ousted and who has fought against him since forever? How is this anything outside the norm of party politics? Especially for a party that is in a civil war?
Future War Cultist wrote: Is it not a little galling to see that Corbyn is moving to banish the opposition from within his own party when he himself was a serial rebel for decades?
Can you expand on exactly what you're refering to? I may have missed a recent development, but at least up until yesterday's Daily Politics I haven't seen any evidence of that. I've ony seen him removing frontbenchers from their positions for voting to ammend a position that was in the manifesto that saved their jobs, and pushing to place more power in the hands of CLPs, as has been his position for decades.
Whirlwind wrote: That is less control as the UK then has absolutely no say on this whatsoever simply because of the amount of trade we do with the EU.
Not entirely - we only need to comply with EU regulations for stuff that is going out to the EU. So it's entirely possible we can make separate domestic market stuff cheaper by cutting regulations. Whether it's worth running 2 production setups for domestic/export is a different matter, but for companies that don't export, or export very little, it may be better for them to just give up trying to meet EU regulations.
Unfortunately that just means lower quality stuff for us, or poorer conditions. It may not even result in a reduction in costs.
Kilkrazy wrote: International financial services accounts for 16% of UK GDP, so that's a deal we won't want to sign very quickly.
Apparently that's a small price to pay for sovereignty.
Yeah, kind of. You're free to personally prioritise maximum economic returns above all else, but not everyone necessarily subscribes to so capitalistic a view of the world. Doesn't make either view wrong or right. Just different. Different isn't always bad.
There's ignoring the capitalist view for better options, and there's ignoring the fact that a 16% hit to the economy would be devastating to everything, particularly public services. We already run a deficit, and a drop in income of that level will mean austerity that'll make the current Tory gutting of the public sector look benevolent. The knock-on consequences would be huge - if property prices drop then that'll hit a lot of investments (like pensions and banking).
Can we cope with losing our international finance sector and the 16% of economy over a few decades? Certainly. But can we deal with the impact of it disappearing over the course of a year or 2?
It's all fair and well to say that we don't like bankers, and the recession was their fault, but we do kinda need to accept that if nothing else we need their money. We could probably have let some of them go under / be nationalized in 2009, but we couldn't really do with seeing them all move to Frankfurt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Ruth Davidson is the most popular Tory in polls, and she did a cracking job up North, but is unlikely to abandon Holyrood.
I'm not sure how well she did on her own merit, or how much is the down to her reliance on a single issue (stopping IndyRef2) to appeal to folk*. She comes across as a nasty individual who isn't that articulate or dynamic. She may be a good fit for the Tories but I don't think she'd hold up particularly well in any real capacity. Bear in mind that at least some of her party gains were aided by Scottish Labour, since there was a lot of encouragement for an anti-SNP vote. Plus a lot of those gains were absolutely marginal (under 2%), so they could easily be lost again. As I understand it there's only really 1 or 2 Tory strongholds in Scotland, the other 13 are fragile, and SNP still has the majority.
She's also got minimal spine it seems; she threatened to ensure the Scottish Tories (15) would vote in Scotlands interests, against the party if needs be, but didn't use that to get any DUP like deal, and seems happy to side with the DUP who should be anathema to her. So she's already seemingly just reverted back to doing what her Westminster overlords tell her.
*That's maybe not fair, she's got 2 issues: Stopping Independence (she's in a unionist party), and attacking the SNP for not doing enough to counter Tory cuts.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think there is a metric for success of Brexit.
Obviously it can easily turn into a huge mess, which is how it looks at the moment. But, assuming we get out on time without a lot of ructions and get a half-decent trade deal, we have to wait five to 10 years to see how well the government and the economy will bear up to the challenges (or rise to the opportunities) of the UK doing its own trade deals.
No one is thinking the UK will suddenly sink into the waves. It's just cost of opportunity. The UK will have to collectively work harder for less return.
It's like the multinational exec who leaves everything to open a country restaurant who realises it has to work longer hours, gets paid less and still has to deal with exactly the same kind of entitled little gaks as before. Because even a small country restaurant has suppliers, banks and customers, at times worse than the ones before.
Ketara wrote: Ruth Davidson is the most popular Tory in polls, and she did a cracking job up North, but is unlikely to abandon Holyrood.
I'm not sure how well she did on her own merit, or how much is the down to her reliance on a single issue (stopping IndyRef2) to appeal to folk
That's it. If the SNP hadn't pushed indyref2, the Tories would still only have one Scottish MP. They're in a bit of a tough bind, their only chances of any electoral success in Scotland rely entirely on the threat of another independence referendum. If they every get their way they'll lose all their seats.
She's also got minimal spine it seems...seems happy to side with the DUP who should be anathema to her
You'd think that, she is marrying an Irish Catholic woman, after all, but she endorses Orangemen for political office, one of whom used to be a BNP activist and whose email was neill1690nosurrender, and is best pals with Murdo Fraser who loves to punt out sectarian football tweets.
That said, her spinelessness is very obvious every time she is forced to defend the rape clause, during which she always looks like half of her brain is trying to exorcise the other half.
I can see a second EU referendum coming. Once the Tories finally admit we can't have our cake and eat it, and that pretty much everything
I doubt May would ever consent to that. She's hung her entire hat on the Brexit train now. No way we'll see a new referendum ahead of a new election.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Future War Cultist wrote: Is it not a little galling to see that Corbyn is moving to banish the opposition from within his own party when he himself was a serial rebel for decades? That's the least of my problems with him though
It's hypocritical, but since he's failed to control the party through fear, and can barely compromise, getting rid of them is all that's left to him. That being said, what the Labour MP's rally behind is someone who they think might win, so they're shutting up now anyway for the most part anyway. They can see that two year milestone as well as me.
By the same measure though, the whole anti-semitism whitewash was an absolute disgrace for the Labour party, and going after an MP because she pointed that out reeks of bad morals setting in.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think there is a metric for success of Brexit.
Obviously it can easily turn into a huge mess, which is how it looks at the moment. But, assuming we get out on time without a lot of ructions and get a half-decent trade deal, we have to wait five to 10 years to see how well the government and the economy will bear up to the challenges (or rise to the opportunities) of the UK doing its own trade deals.
By my measuring stick, getting out with a fair trade deal that lets business carry on more or less as normal with a bit of extra paperwork? That would be a success. I don't doubt one or two sectors are going to take a minor hit regardless, but that happens as a matter of course in yearly market developments regardless.
The nub of whether Brexit is a success or failure is how big the hit is, how long it takes to manifest, and how quickly it passes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jouso wrote:
No one is thinking the UK will suddenly sink into the waves.
See, you say this, but the post above you has things like:-
Herzlos wrote:Can we cope with losing our international finance sector and the 16% of economy over a few decades? Certainly. But can we deal with the impact of it disappearing over the course of a year or 2?
I went into a detailed breakdown of the vulnerability of the different parts of the banking sector to Brexit some time back (if you care to dig, it was in one of these threads). And the outshot was that some very specific parts of it were vulnerable, whereas a large amount of it was not. Speculations that it'll all vanish in a year or two, or that:-
we couldn't really do with seeing them all move to Frankfurt.
are really just quite generalistic doomsaying with little basis in reality. 'Bankers' across all sectors don't actually function collectively, and no force short of nuclear war is going to displace the infrastructure or place of the City of London that quickly.
Although in all fairness to Herzlos, the way the media simplifies these things doesn't help for general understanding.
Avoidance of IndyRef2 was certainly a factor, but there has always been a welcome in Scotland for the kind of "Red Tory" that Thatcher called "wet". Plus all parties have ups and downs caused by reversion to the mean, and right now it looks like the regression is going to favour the Scottish Tories over the SNP. Eventually that will swing back, of course.
Regarding soverignty versus economics, this isn't an obvious trade-off. The rinciple of Brexit is that the UK will do better economically once it is freed from the bureaucratic shackles of the EU. (And so on.) ALl this can and has been disputed in various ways.
At the bottom line, though, there are two key things about how we organise our socieyt to divvy up the rewards of economic success:
1. Who gets what percentage of the overall pie?
2. How big is the pie?
There clearly are cases where it's better to have a smaller slice of a bigger pie, while conversely, if you own the whole of a smoking post-apocalyptic wasteland it doesn't do you any good at all.
Therefore my comment that economics underpins everything else.
A weak economy can't pay pensions, social security, build infrastructure or invest in education, etc.
Apart from Corbyn removing the front benchers, there has been an unofficial move to start getting anti-Corbynistas deselected, and a proposal to change the Labour Party's rules in ways that will make it harder for the MPs to affect the choice of leader.
These haven't come directly from Corbyn, as far as we know, but they still are obvious moves to the left wing where Corbyn happily sits.
There wasn't any kind of public appetite for a general election. Looking back, I now feel that it was entirely caused by May's desire to take advantage of Labour's at the time massive deficit in the opinion polls. The guff about strengthening her hand for Brexit negotiations was just guff.
I actually think May will do everything she can to avoid another referendum. At the same time, I think a referendum is completely justified given the total lack of clarity about the impacts of leaving the EU during the first referendum.
I have no idea how the result might play out. Things are going to change over the next 18 months anyway.
I have honestly no idea. She behaves like there's a few of them and they don't talk to each other, given how randomly she flips about.
I think she & party will be keen to avoid any election/referendum in the near term, until they find some way to rebuild favour. As it stands they have a bad chance of losing a GE (I think they'd easily lose some of the Scottish seats after people wise up to the tactical voting - there were places people were encouraged by Labour to vote Tory, to beat the SNP. If they'd just voted Labour then Labour would have won the seat. They won't do that twice).
jouso wrote:
No one is thinking the UK will suddenly sink into the waves.
See, you say this, but the post above you has things like:-
Herzlos wrote:Can we cope with losing our international finance sector and the 16% of economy over a few decades? Certainly. But can we deal with the impact of it disappearing over the course of a year or 2?
I went into a detailed breakdown of the vulnerability of the different parts of the banking sector to Brexit some time back (if you care to dig, it was in one of these threads). And the outshot was that some very specific parts of it were vulnerable, whereas a large amount of it was not. Speculations that it'll all vanish in a year or two, or that:-
we couldn't really do with seeing them all move to Frankfurt.
are really just quite generalistic doomsaying with little basis in reality. 'Bankers' across all sectors don't actually function collectively, and no force short of nuclear war is going to displace the infrastructure or place of the City of London that quickly.
Still that's a far cry from sinking. The UK would be on a par with Italy which is still a pretty desirable part of the world to work and live. And that's the Doomsday scenario.
However in the citizen minds going backwards is a very hard fact to accept. Especially if you were promised the land of milk and honey.
Kilkrazy wrote: Avoidance of IndyRef2 was certainly a factor
The factor. Tories did absolutely zero campaigning on any other issue. Neither did the Lib Dems. Labour kicked about a couple of ideas about using tax powers, but largely also ran on 'No To IndyRef2'. Every single camapign leaflet and advert from everyone except the Greens and SNP (for the council AND general elections) exclusively dealt with IndyRef2. It's the only game in town.
Apart from Corbyn removing the front benchers, there has been an unofficial move to start getting anti-Corbynistas deselected, and a proposal to change the Labour Party's rules in ways that will make it harder for the MPs to affect the choice of leader.
These haven't come directly from Corbyn, as far as we know, but they still are obvious moves to the left wing where Corbyn happily sits.
I don't accept it's as linear as this. Democratising the party to grant more power to CLPs is a good thing. You'd hope to see it in all parties but to my knowledge it's fairly alien to everyone except the Lib Dems and the Scottish Greens. It so happens at the moment that it favours Corbyn supporting MPs, because that's who the majority of the membership back, but in other times it will favour other paradigms. It will only impact MPs who don't get on with their CLPs rather than hit every anti-Corbyn MP. Hilary Benn and Tom Watson, probably the biggest ani-Corbyn voices, would probably be ok. Angela Eagle would be done for.
To all those complaining that the Tory Scots had a focus on one issue; I think the wider context is being missed.
Firstly, they're still part of a larger political group, so I'm not sure you can break it down and say to the 'Conservative Tories' and the 'Conservatives' are campaigning on entirely separate platforms. When the Tory Prime Minister is putting out her manifesto, it's also the Scottish Tory Party's.
Secondly, in all fairness, the SNP basically campaigned solely on the same thing in reverse. 'A vote for us is a vote for another referendum'. As the party in opposition in Holyrood but in government in London, the Scottish branch of the Tories are primarily concerned more with countering in the incumbents in Holyrood. They can't devise alternative policies to what's coming out of Westminster, their job is rather to focus on challenging the establishment. And as the establishment up there chose to fight on the ground of 'We want another referendum', that was the ground Davidson had to meet them on.
I watched a number of her addresses at the time, and most of it wasn't so much 'Vote for us to stay in the UK', as it was'Vote for us because the SNP are hellbent on another referendum and are ignoring every other issue in Scotland'. It's a subtle, yet important distinction. She wasn't fighting a campaign based off of her own policies, because those mostly come from Westminster. She was fighting a campaign on the ground that the SNP specifically chose to draw the battlelines on.
Accordingly, I don't think it's entirely fair to accuse her of not having sufficient variety in the campaign, y'know? There's something to it, but the wider context should be recognised.
On a sidenote, I actually thought she gave a better speech than May or Corbyn generally. She certainly seems to have more substance than either. She's ex-military, an ex-journalist, bolshy, and rolls with the punches when under verbal attack. I'd probably take her as PM anyday over Bojo, Fox, or Gove. She's got a history in terms of stances on issues generally that I can respect (especially slagging off the Saudis).
Ketara wrote: To all those complaining that the Tory Scots had a focus on one issue; I think the wider context is being missed.
Firstly, they're still part of a larger political group, so I'm not sure you can break it down and say to the 'Conservative Tories' and the 'Conservatives' are campaigning on entirely separate platforms. When the Tory Prime Minister is putting out her manifesto, it's also the Scottish Tory Party's.
It is, but you wouldn't know it from any of their campaigning in Scotland, or barely even from the Scottish press. It's really becoming cult of personality stuff. The Scottish Tories are the Ruth Davidson Party. The Conservative logo usually features only as a tiny image in the bottom corner of their materials.
Secondly, in all fairness, the SNP basically campaigned solely on the same thing in reverse. 'A vote for us is a vote for another referendum'.
No, they absolute did not. They strove incredibly hard to avoid ever speaking about IndyRef2 through both the council and general election campaigns. Much to the chagrin of some of their supporters.
As the party in opposition in Holyrood but in government in London, the Scottish branch of the Tories are primarily concerned more with countering in the incumbents in Holyrood. They can't devise alternative policies to what's coming out of Westminster, their job is rather to focus on challenging the establishment. And as the establishment up there chose to fight on the ground of 'We want another referendum', that was the ground Davidson had to meet them on.
I watched a number of her addresses at the time, and most of it wasn't so much 'Vote for us to stay in the UK', as it was'Vote for us because the SNP are hellbent on another referendum and are ignoring every other issue in Scotland'. It's a subtle, yet important distinction. She wasn't fighting a campaign based off of her own policies, because those mostly come from Westminster. She was fighting a campaign on the ground that the SNP specifically chose to draw the battlelines on.
I'm afraid you could only think this if you have absolutely no familiarity with recent Scottish political discourse whatsoever. Everthing you are saying is exactly the opposite of the reality. It was the press, the Tories, and Labour who were able to dictate the terms of the campaign. It was they who insisted it was about another referendum. Unless directly questioned on it, all SNP spokespeople avoided it at all costs.
Ketara wrote: To all those complaining that the Tory Scots had a focus on one issue; I think the wider context is being missed.
Firstly, they're still part of a larger political group, so I'm not sure you can break it down and say to the 'Conservative Tories' and the 'Conservatives' are campaigning on entirely separate platforms. When the Tory Prime Minister is putting out her manifesto, it's also the Scottish Tory Party's.
It is, but you wouldn't know it from any of their campaigning in Scotland, or barely even from the Scottish press. It's really becoming cult of personality stuff. The Scottish Tories are the Ruth Davidson Party. The Conservative logo usually features only as a tiny image in the bottom corner of their materials.
You may well be right. But none of that addresses the point made, primarily that it's not really within Davidson's role to start dictating Tory election policy, and to decry her for not doing so is hardly fair.
I'm afraid you could only think this if you have absolutely no familiarity with recent Scottish political discourse whatsoever. Everthing you are saying is exactly the opposite of the reality. It was the press, the Tories, and Labour who were able to dictate the terms of the campaign. It was they who insisted it was about another referendum. Unless directly questioned on it, all SNP spokespeople avoided it at all costs.
I watched two speeches by Davidson, two by Sturgeon, and one by Dugdale. I also consumed the headlines that appeared in the Press relating to the Scottish campaign in the GE more generally. My impressions are drawn from those. Perhaps the campaign was different from where you're standing, but I can only comment on what I witnessed coming out of the mouths of the party leaders.
Whirlwind wrote: That is less control as the UK then has absolutely no say on this whatsoever simply because of the amount of trade we do with the EU.
Not entirely - we only need to comply with EU regulations for stuff that is going out to the EU. So it's entirely possible we can make separate domestic market stuff cheaper by cutting regulations. Whether it's worth running 2 production setups for domestic/export is a different matter, but for companies that don't export, or export very little, it may be better for them to just give up trying to meet EU regulations.
Unfortunately that just means lower quality stuff for us, or poorer conditions. It may not even result in a reduction in costs.
There is only one group that can really benefit from this though - big business that already make huge profits and have enough lines in the manufacturing process (simply because there are enough units not sold to the EU) that they can tweak one or two so they can save some money on lesser standards. Any middle or small business simply won't have the market or the resources to have separate lines. They will have no choice but to comply with the highest standard they export to. A farmer is unlikely to be able to split their crops into EU and non-EU compliant food and so on.
I can see a second EU referendum coming. Once the Tories finally admit we can't have our cake and eat it, and that pretty much everything
I doubt May would ever consent to that. She's hung her entire hat on the Brexit train now. No way we'll see a new referendum ahead of a new election.
That depends on how long May has. We can expect a new PM before the next GE. May is dead in the water and sinking. The Tories may just let her make a complete arse out of Wrexit and then the person coming in will just swing behind another referendum because they are 'listening to the younger generation'.
That was a point raised a long time ago. I think it said that the biggest companies and producers can lobby the EU to ensure that their products set the standards, thus helping to drive out smaller competitors. I could show the link but that thread was deleted.
Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.
Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.
Want to expand on what 'his kind' are?
He wants to change the rules re: deselection as he has wanted for decades, but what's the innate problem with that? Why shouldn't CLPs have more power in deciding who represents them than the leadership?
Future War Cultist wrote: That was a point raised a long time ago. I think it said that the biggest companies and producers can lobby the EU to ensure that their products set the standards, thus helping to drive out smaller competitors. I could show the link but that thread was deleted.
...
I don't know how true that is but if there's anything to it, the UK government are liable to be even more prone to such influence.
Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.
Want to expand on what 'his kind' are?
He wants to change the rules re: deselection as he has wanted for decades, but what's the innate problem with that? Why shouldn't CLPs have more power in deciding who represents them than the leadership?
I think what McCarthy there is implying is that Corbyn is a kind of mythical hellbeast many of Good and Proper linage here in the USA call a liberal.
It's nonsense, anyway. There was a big hullabaloo here in the US about Trump cutting all the ambassadors loose. It sucks, but it's actually in the right for the president to do, and generally elected officials are want to replace the staff with people who aren't going to constant disagree with them. This is nothing new.
Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.
Want to expand on what 'his kind' are?
He wants to change the rules re: deselection as he has wanted for decades, but what's the innate problem with that? Why shouldn't CLPs have more power in deciding who represents them than the leadership?
I think what McCarthy there is implying is that Corbyn is a kind of mythical hellbeast many of Good and Proper linage here in the USA call a liberal.
It's nonsense, anyway. There was a big hullabaloo here in the US about Trump cutting all the ambassadors loose. It sucks, but it's actually in the right for the president to do, and generally elected officials are want to replace the staff with people who aren't going to constant disagree with them. This is nothing new.
Indeed. Though that isn't what Corbyn would like to do. It's not about him bringing his MPs into line or replacing them with his supporters. It's giving the power to do that to the membership. What I think FWC might be missing above is that Corbyn's position reduces the leader's ability to influence selection and gives more power to the party's grass roots. Currently, that favours Corbyn-supporting candidates in many constituencies, but he supported it when it would have heavily favoured Blairites, too.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.
What exactly are you referring to, here? Obviously that's a perfectly factual statement,but I'm not sure what relevance it has to Corbyn or the possibilities of rebalancing Labour candidate selection in favour of local parties? Or are you just responding to the statement about Trump?
If the far left-wing...
If they're far left in mindset (they're not, but could be on a scale that anchors itself on what current discourse claims is the centre) then they certainly aren't in policy.
Liberals in the centre-left.
I've no idea how anyone with a handle on UK politics can think that the Liberals are centre-left.
Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.
Want to expand on what 'his kind' are?
He wants to change the rules re: deselection as he has wanted for decades, but what's the innate problem with that? Why shouldn't CLPs have more power in deciding who represents them than the leadership?
I think what McCarthy there is implying is that Corbyn is a kind of mythical hellbeast many of Good and Proper linage here in the USA call a liberal.
It's nonsense, anyway. There was a big hullabaloo here in the US about Trump cutting all the ambassadors loose. It sucks, but it's actually in the right for the president to do, and generally elected officials are want to replace the staff with people who aren't going to constant disagree with them. This is nothing new.
If you knew Corbyn's past, his views and who he's friends with (IRA, Helzbolla, Russia etc.) you'd understand why I'm wary of him instead of chucking insults at me. The word liberal (or what you Americans call a liberal) is thrown around a lot, but Corbyn really is one.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.
What exactly are you referring to, here? Obviously that's a perfectly factual statement,but I'm not sure what relevance it has to Corbyn or the possibilities of rebalancing Labour candidate selection in favour of local parties? Or are you just responding to the statement about Trump?
If the far left-wing...
If they're far left in mindset (they're not, but could be on a scale that anchors itself on what current discourse claims is the centre) then they certainly aren't in policy.
Liberals in the centre-left.
I've no idea how anyone with a handle on UK politics can think that the Liberals are centre-left.
Specifically Trump, and more generally I am opposing the idea that things are good because they aren't illegal.
As for Corbyn, I don't think it's a problem if the far left seizes control of the party. If they have enough popular support, it's impossible not to happen. The one source of trouble I can see is that it's apparently the budget members driving this move. If the long-term full price members dislike it enough, they can disrupt the local party organisation by not cooperating. Local organisation remains vital for getting the vote out during a real election.
The Labour Party has history of "Blue Labour" members breaking off and forming a centre-left party, then joining the Liberals. That is what the Social Democrat Party was about in the early 80s.
If you knew Corbyn's past, his views and who he's friends with (IRA, Helzbolla, Russia etc.)
Communicating with =/= best buds.
Parliamentarians using parlliamentary language when referring to other parliamentarians (domestic or foreign) =/= best buds.
Specifically Trump, and more generally I am opposing the idea that things are good because they aren't illegal.
Well, certainly no opposition to that sentiment from me.
As for Corbyn, I don't think it's a problem if the far left seizes control of the party.
I think this type of language is a real problem in current political discourse. It's really just propaganda. They're not the far left. They're just the left. In global terms, they're the centre-left. Similarly, they're not seizing control. If there's a takeover happening at all, then it's the party being taken back to its roots after it was seized by the Blairites.
It was Blair who controversially got rid of Clause 4, the commitment to public ownership of business which was their commitment to socialism. To return to the original constitution is a significant move to the left. In European frame of reference it would put them pretty far left.
Kilkrazy wrote: It was Blair who controversially got rid of Clause 4, the commitment to public ownership of business which was their commitment to socialism. To return to the original constitution is a significant move to the left. In European frame of reference it would put them pretty far left.
Well I'm glad we're agreed it's a return to the core principles that have rooted the party for most of its history rather than an entryist seizure. It really isn't the far left in European terms at all. Most of Europe have significantly more prominent and successful leftist parties than the UK where Corbyn's Labour wouldn't stand out at all.
I think this type of language is a real problem in current political discourse. It's really just propaganda. They're not the far left. They're just the left. In global terms, they're the centre-left. Similarly, they're not seizing control. If there's a takeover happening at
all, then it's the party being taken back to its roots after it was seized by the Blairites.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to be blunt here. No. You are factually, indisputably, incorrect, both historically and with regards to contemporary events. I'll elaborate.
To put it on a general scale, you have the liberal left, then the socialist left, and then the hard left. The Labour Party has incorporated members of all three stripes (and in between) for the longest time, and historically speaking, one of the hardest task of any would be Labour leader has been chivvying them all in line to form a cohesive whole. Depending on the leader and their own personal sympathies, the dominance of any of those stripes of 'leftie' within the party has risen and fallen. I'll show the distinction historically first.
To provide an example of the liberal left, one has simply to look to New Labour or (as mentioned by KK) the SDP breakaway from the party back in the 1980's. They tend to be more focused on human rights concerns than the plight of the workers, in terms of political philosophy. Much more a case of the metropolitan elite. New Labour has tarnished them quite badly, but the reality is that not every Liberal style Labour politician is a 'Blairite' (with all the word implies). Most of them would be equally at home in the Liberal Democrats, but they joined the Labour Party because they have more ambition/desire to affect policy than sitting in opposition forever.
To provide an example of the socialist left, you want to look at James Callaghan. Classic case of a man torn between the liberal and hard left wings of the party. He sat firmly in the middle, passing legislation to deny immigrants access to the country to protect markets whilst at the same time making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity when hiring. He drew up the Social Contract for the trade Unions to get them to accept wage stagnation in exchange for food subsidies and rent freezes, and so forth. He re-affirmed the Labour Party's links with the Unions, but at the same time had no compunctions in blocking them when it came to what he saw as being for the good of the country. To this day, Callaghan is slagged off people on both other ends of the party as a turncoat, but I find him to be an excellent example of a British socialism.
Another example would be Neil Kinnock, who in one speech against the hard left said "I am telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling to short-term egos – you can't play politics with people's jobs and with people's services or with their homes."] The Socialist left wing of the party is left-wing, in a nutshell, but they ultimately retain a desire to improve the lot of the people through existing State apparatus than radical reform.
With regards to the Hard Left, you need look no further than the Bennites. Tony Benn himself was the kind of man who described Chairman Mao as 'one of the greatest figures of the twentieth century. Michael Foot promoted leaving the EEC, abolishing the House of Lords, complete nuclear disarmament and so on. You have the more recent Trotskyist pressure group within Labour, Militant, who effectively pressured for the Marxist revolution. Generally speaking, the hardcore left hate capitalism, put horrible human rights violators on a pedestal because they oppose capitalism, and tend to believe more in the idea that serious hard left economic and social policies should be undertaken for the good of the nation, irrespective of who they trample on.
So. All that being said, you do get plenty of people who sit in between the different categories, or who take a bit of a pick and mix approach. A lot of Liberal Labour types support nuclear disarmament for example, which is normally a hallmark of the hard left (albeit for completely different reasons - the Hard Left views armaments as a tool of oppression and exploitation by the rich, the more liberal types look at it on more humanitarian 'Aren't nukes nasty' ground).
To bring it sharply into contemporary focus, the hard left has been on the decline in Labour for quite some time. Kinnock committed quite firmly to trying to break the Hard left's influence as a 'party within a party', and Blair further sidelined them, promoting MP's of a more liberal stripe. Militant died a slow and painful death because nobody in this country was interested in the revolution anymore. Living standards improved, and it seemed less and less relevant. That generally destroyed most of the Hard Left even on a local level for the Labour party.
In other words, the Hard Left have, until extremely recently, been reduced to a bare rump within the Labour Party. But there are still survivors. The most prominent one right now is John McDonnell, Corbyn's right hand man. He served under that wonderful Ken Livingstone as part of the GLC, insulted the Tories so nastily in campaigning that he got sued (successfully) for libel, has publicly been recorded saying that he's a Marxist (even if he later tried to deny it). Meanwhile, Seamus Milne has become Corbyn's other hand, who generally hates Europe, and spends his time writing about how Soviet communism 'encompassed genuine idealism', how terrorists are all the Wests fault and they totally deserve it, and how great Putin is. So they're very much present in the highest echelons of Corbyn's ruling group right now.
In terms of local party takeovers, most of this has been done by Momentum, the most recent 'party within a party'. They espouse to support Corbyn, but not directly take orders from him. I think that's a load of bollocks personally, considering their chairman quite literally occasonally works in Corbyn's office. That chairman is Jon Lansman, who worked as chief fixer for Tony Benn (he who was mentioned above in the hard left category) and supported him in his challenge against Kinnock (he who was mentioned in the socialist left column above). Now Momentum itself is not intrinsically hard left, it's populated quite considerably by younger people with no such affiliations or interests. There's been a dedicated effort on the part of many hard leftists to take control of the helm however, Laura Murray (the Womens Officer for Momentum) has publicly written about seeing such hard leftists bullying younger members.
Private Eye has detailed in several instances a number of those harder left candidates who have succeeded in worming their way onto local Labour positions of power recently. Up until the most recent election, they'd run out of steam. People had grown bored of Corbyn, and that meant that they were having difficulty getting the support they needed. Now that Corbyn's been revived, it is quite likely that the previous trend will continue.
To summarise, the hard left has always historically been a presence within the Labour Party, and until very recently, quite a strong one. Quite aside from the fact of whether or not Corbyn himself is one (I suspect he sits with a foot in both the socialist and hard left camps personally), he has surrounded himself with remnants of the hard left. And those remnants are doing their damnedest to re-entrench themselves by riding on his coat-tails.
From the top of my head, Left-wing governments, proper left and not this new Labour horsegak, have only been in power 20 out of the last 100 years in UK history. So the myth they damage the country is just that: a myth.
It's good for the nation to tilt to the left now and again IMO.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.
If the far left-wing takes over the Labour Party, perhaps the centrists -- Blue Labour -- will leave and join the Liberals in the centre-left.
I absolutely agree that it's not the morally right thing to do, but my arguing is that is not unprecedented nor necessarily morally wrong. I'm more arguing from a pragmatic point of view and I think there is a point is asking what would it have meant if Corbyn didn't remove those people. I'm highly doubtful he would have gotten any thing for other than weak praise for it and still been left in some kind of compromised position.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.
If the far left-wing takes over the Labour Party, perhaps the centrists -- Blue Labour -- will leave and join the Liberals in the centre-left.
I absolutely agree that it's not the morally right thing to do, but my arguing is that is not unprecedented nor necessarily morally wrong. I'm more arguing from a pragmatic point of view and I think there is a point is asking what would it have meant if Corbyn didn't remove those people. I'm highly doubtful he would have gotten any thing for other than weak praise for it and still been left in some kind of compromised position.
It sounds rather like a red coup to oust the non Corbynites.
That would unite but also mean they risk lurching too far left and pandering to momentum.
There needs to be a left. But not crazy fall off cliff left.
Kilkrazy wrote: Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.
If the far left-wing takes over the Labour Party, perhaps the centrists -- Blue Labour -- will leave and join the Liberals in the centre-left.
I absolutely agree that it's not the morally right thing to do, but my arguing is that is not unprecedented nor necessarily morally wrong. I'm more arguing from a pragmatic point of view and I think there is a point is asking what would it have meant if Corbyn didn't remove those people. I'm highly doubtful he would have gotten any thing for other than weak praise for it and still been left in some kind of compromised position.
It sounds rather like a red coup to oust the non Corbynites.
That would unite but also mean they risk lurching too far left and pandering to momentum.
There needs to be a left. But not crazy fall off cliff left.
If only we didn't have to suffer as result of pandering to the the crazy fall off cliff right.
But from what you are describing, it looks like you confuse things from either of these strains.
I wouldn't try to talk about "Hard Left", because it's an oversimplification, usually used indeed as propaganda from the other side to strike fear in the heart of ignorant voters...and it's just the same to talk about "Hard Right".
Links to wikipedia aren't the absolute truth, sure, but it gives a general idea of the situation of the Left.
I think this type of language is a real problem in current political discourse. It's really just propaganda. They're not the far left. They're just the left. In global terms, they're the centre-left. Similarly, they're not seizing control. If there's a takeover happening at
all, then it's the party being taken back to its roots after it was seized by the Blairites.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to be blunt here. No. You are factually, indisputably, incorrect, both historically and with regards to contemporary events. I'll elaborate.
To put it on a general scale, you have the liberal left, then the socialist left, and then the hard left.
Sorry, you've taken the time to write a lengthy post that deserves a comprehensive response but it all revolves around this simplistic tripartite subdivision of the left, places folks into it uncritically, and omits any wider contextual issues. It doesn't directly address anything I said. Fundamentally, it will never be appropriate to describe a bunch of guys who want to work within the Westminster system as the far- or the hard-left, however people might attempt to spin it.
Sarouan wrote:
I wouldn't try to talk about "Hard Left", because it's an oversimplification, usually used indeed as propaganda from the other side to strike fear in the heart of ignorant voters...and it's just the same to talk about "Hard Right".
nfe wrote:
Sorry, you've taken the time to write a lengthy post that deserves a comprehensive response but it all revolves around this simplistic tripartite subdivision of the left, places folks into it uncritically, and omits any wider contextual issues. It doesn't directly address anything I said... Fundamentally, it will never be appropriate to describe a bunch of guys who want to work within the Westminster system as the far- or the hard-left, however people might attempt to spin it.
I think what's being missed here was my introductory sentence, 'To put it on a general scale'. You could break either of those three rough classifications down into practically as many types of 'leftism' as you possess politicians. Everyone has a slightly different political philosophy, and frankly, left wing politics subdivides more times than christianity.
But for the purposes of general discussion about British politics, trying to subdivide a dedicated Marxist who has a tinge of Stalin's 'communism in one country' from a devout Trotskyite is a pointless task. It is adequate to categorise both as 'Hard Left' for the purposes of this discussion, because both would be perceived as such by the general public. If you insist on saying that anyone who enters Westminster could by definition never be hard-left, you're entering into the political game of No True Scotsman.
With regards to what I'm dubbing as the 'Socialist Left', I'm aware it's somewhat ill-defined. The problem is that British socialism as a rule of thumb is (to give some more context) somewhat ill-defined (and potentially bourgeoisie depending on who you talk to ). Again, for generalised descriptive purposes, I'd classify it as those who have a desire to maintain links to socialist roots (i.e. the unions) and philosophy (working towards the good of the common working man; as opposed to the more liberal bent which works towards the good of everyone), but are unwilling to go to extreme measures to do so (which would harm a substantial number of people irrelevant of social background) and are willing to work more or less within the level of state apparatus which exists.
That's what I would dub 'British socialism', but I'm aware that it's a somewhat rough around the edges definition. The separation between them and the Hard Left is perceivable within the history of the British Labour Party however, so trying to pretend that nobody of the Hard Left exists within the Parliamentary system, and that Militant Tendency and everyone else in Labour were no more left-wing than each other would be....erroneous.
On a sidenote; politics is almost as fun as philosophy when it comes to arguing over minute trivia and classification which make normal people look at you blankly and then shuffle away.
If people here have an issue with the term "Hard" or "Far" Left...would they kindly reciprocate and refrain from labelling Brexit supporters and parties such as UKIP as the "Far Right"? In the interests of mutual respect and not being a hypocrite.
The current Labour Party is social-democratic moving towards democratic socialist, and it contains elements of left-libertarianism.
It took the Labour Party nearly 20 years to shed its far left elements concluding with Clause 4, and become electable. IMO they were forced down this path by the pressure of history. The British public genuinely had got a bit sick of unions by the end of the 70s and voted enthusiastically for Thatcher. Union power in the 70s was associated with the oil shock crash, high inflation and such like. In the years and decades that followed, a lot of people suffered economic deprivation, but there were a lot of improvements such as increased efficiency in British Telecom, as a result of privatisation.
I believe the pendulum now has swung the other way.
Right wing power now is associated with the toxic aftermath of the financial crisis. The deprivation has got worse for the lowest classes and is biting into the middle classes (e.g. effective 10% pay drop for nurses and doctors.) Thus the anger has built up. People are sick of austerity. They see it as a cheat forced on them to support the richest in society. They are sick of bad private services like utilities and the railways. Big business, especially banks are very unpopular and don\t know how to make things better. They are ready for a good dose of socialism and nationalisation.
In terms of the Brexit labelling, it's clear that the Leave vote consisted of both left wing and right wing elements, united by their opposition to the EU. That is shown by the UKIP vote collapse which didn't transfer directly into Tory votes last month and was split between left and right parties.
See the descriptions of these categories on Wikipedia and compare with the current status of the Labour Party.
To put it very generally, social democrats support a strong private industry and good social services within a democratic system. Democratic socialists support a strong nationalised industry and good social services within a democratic system.
The Labour Party abandoned its commitment to national industry under Blair (shedding Clause 4 from its constitution) and now under Corbyn they are moving away form that position back to favouring nationalisation.
Forget ideology, it's crime we should be worried about.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.
Right, which is where the right to bear arms and defend yourself can be an advantage.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.
Right, which is where the right to bear arms and defend yourself can be an advantage.
OT: Except that, conversely, it's not exactly a good idea to have a right to bear arms in the UK in densely packed urban areas. Most people in this country are dangerous with a ballot paper, much less a firearm.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.
Right, which is where the right to bear arms and defend yourself can be an advantage.
The problem with this is that while a vast majority of people think that they can handle firearms, only a tiny-weeny minority of people can actually handle firearms properly while under pressure.
Besides, it's very naive to think that a armed populace means less crime.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.
Right, which is where the right to bear arms and defend yourself can be an advantage.
The problem with this is that while a vast majority of people think that they can handle firearms, only a tiny-weeny minority of people can actually handle firearms properly while under pressure.
Besides, it's very naive to think that a armed populace means less crime.
Doubt me? Just look at the US.
Who said anything about it reducing crime? We're talking about people being able to defend themselves against crime.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.
Right, which is where the right to bear arms and defend yourself can be an advantage.
The problem with this is that while a vast majority of people think that they can handle firearms, only a tiny-weeny minority of people can actually handle firearms properly while under pressure.
Besides, it's very naive to think that a armed populace means less crime.
Doubt me? Just look at the US.
Who said anything about it reducing crime? We're talking about people being able to defend themselves against crime.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.
Right, which is where the right to bear arms and defend yourself can be an advantage.
You know practically everyone in the countryside already does, right?
I remember when a farmer's daughter tried to hit on me by asking me if I wanted to come and test her shotgun.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
...
Source?
I'm on the move with a mobile, so posting links is a bit dodgy, but rest assured when I'm back in front of the PC, I'll post some links.
We've had Co-op stores being robbed, post offices raided, and even Gleneagles was raided the other week.
If a world famous hotel can't defend itself, then what hope have the rest of us got?
Gangs are coming up south from England. Last year, a London based gang, robbing us left, right , and centre, were eventually caught and sent down for a 30 year stretch. IMO, that's only the tip of the iceberg.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.
Right, which is where the right to bear arms and defend yourself can be an advantage.
I wish I had a £1 for every time I've said this, but the nation really is going to the dogs. Even if we do catch the fethers, the prison system is going down like the Titanic!
There was a newspaper report the other day, can't remember which, which reported a haul of thousands of mobile phones and millions worth of illegal drugs being recovered from our prisons, and they think that's only the tip of the problem.
Another glorious failure from the law and order party in government.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.
By all accounts they don't have the numbers to cover anywhere! 20,000 police officers axed in England and Wales since 2010. Damn those Tories!
Up here in Scotland, the police and the courts are devolved to Edinburgh, and things are better run than England and Wales, by all accounts, but when the bar is set that low, that's not exactly aiming high.
While I disagree with your conclusions, I don't disagree and an not surprised at an uptick in countryside violence happening at some point.
It is the nature of every organisation to want more. Public or otherwise. Look at the classic story of charities ending up with many layers of management earning 6 figure salaries. So I've always looked with a cynical eye on "public body X doesn't have enough resources to do Y."
In saying that, there's many aspects to think about. For I've thing, the isn't that many people, nevermind police in relatively large areas of the country.
But the other reason why I think country side violence is inevitable. You drive around the countryside outside of Glasgow, what do you see? Completely tasteless new build mansions, gaudy swimming pools, driveways filled with Lamborghini's and so on. I don't need to be a detective to know that isn't old money. Nor is it some start overnight millionaire wunderkinds new home.
There's a pretty dammed obvious source for that sort of money. And the old saying "you don't gak where you eat" explains why the homes aren't found close to Glasgow itself. Eventually violence will find their ways to these areas, whether it's rivals or just the scions learning the tools of the trade locally, these things will happen.
As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.
we're an easy target up here.
I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...
Citations, please? Not something I've come across either in the news or anecdotally.
I will also say, that Law and Order operates under the cooperation of the 'trinity' or the triangle as I call it.
The three sides of the triangle are:
1. The Police
2. The judiciary
3. The penal system i.e prison.
Now, you can have the best police force in the world, but if the other two sides of the triangle don't function properly, then you're in trouble.
Sadly, in the UK, only the judiciary seems to be functioning as it should, but even then, it's under strain from courthouses being shut down, legal aid being cut, and senior judges and Sheriffs taking retirement and a lack of suitable replacements.
The other two branches of the triangle are going down hill. Police numbers are being slashed, criminals roam the streets with impunity, and even when they do get caught, our prisons seem to be morphing into holiday camps, a free for all of drugs, booze, and even more crime
Fixing one of those areas would be a hard task, but two? This incompetent government, the so called party of law and order is not up to it.
Sadly, and with great reluctance in saying this, if things continue the way they are, then law abiding citizens may have to be armed for the good of British society.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Given perception is 9/10ths of the law - is it really on the increase, or just being reported more frequently?
In my opinion. a lot of crime reporting is being swept under the carpet.
We know the government counts zero hour contract people as being 'employed' so why wouldn't the police 'massage' what constitutes a crime?
Oh there's definite shifts in how crime is recorded.
We saw a jump in Gun crime a while back, because Gun Crime was redefined to include threats to shoot someone, and even the old 'fingers in the pocket, pretend it's a gun' ruse.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A relatively small up-tick in crime in a rural area certainly can seem to locals like a "crime wave" even though it's minor compared to the whole of the country.
Automatically Appended Next Post: A relatively small up-tick in crime in a rural area certainly can seem to locals like a "crime wave" even though it's minor compared to the whole of the country.
Perception is always important in the fight against crime, which is why the bobby on the beat is a popular option for a lot of the British public.
We're talking about three different things here. One is the perception of crime, the other is the reporting of crime locally, and the third is the national statistics on crime.
The latter figures (compiled outside Scotland by analysis of three different sets of data) give the most accurate picture of fluctuations in different types of crimes.
Local crime reporting, while factual in itself, doesn't give the kind of high quality analysis you get from the Office of National Statistics.
I could go on and on, but we're under siege up here
The plural of anecdotes is not data. Do you have any ACTUAL sources?
Anecdotal?
Those criminals were caught, arrested , sentenced in a court of law, and are now languishing in jail. There's nothing anecdotal about hard facts!
That's not how statistics work. You've picked three cases in isolation; as an indicator of whether crime has increased or not they're essentially worthless. We have no data to compare to, and we've got way too few cases to draw any reliable conclusions from them. Hence, the plural of anecdotes is not data.
The country has never faced a more damaging situation than the one they have placed us in. The defecit and government debt is going to be the least if their worries if they keep this up.
If it wasn't so worrying, it'd be fething hilarious.
Still, apparently, Jacob Rees-Mogg is being promoted in some quarters as the next leader of the Conservatives,
Kilkrazy wrote: We're talking about three different things here. One is the perception of crime, the other is the reporting of crime locally, and the third is the national statistics on crime.
The latter figures (compiled outside Scotland by analysis of three different sets of data) give the most accurate picture of fluctuations in different types of crimes.
Local crime reporting, while factual in itself, doesn't give the kind of high quality analysis you get from the Office of National Statistics.
No offence intended Kilkrazy, but when I'm in my local area, and I see post offices getting turned over, and corner shop owners fighting off armed robbers, I don't have the luxury of thinking that things aren't so bad just because some egghead in the national statistics office, sitting in his ivory tower, thinks the overall crime trend is down on his charts and graphs!
We're under siege up here, and people are wondering why they bother paying their taxes!
Try musty basement filled with mold, rotten timbers and probably some left over asbestos that some PFI company hasn't gotten round to dealing with yet.
Kilkrazy wrote: We're talking about three different things here. One is the perception of crime, the other is the reporting of crime locally, and the third is the national statistics on crime.
The latter figures (compiled outside Scotland by analysis of three different sets of data) give the most accurate picture of fluctuations in different types of crimes.
Local crime reporting, while factual in itself, doesn't give the kind of high quality analysis you get from the Office of National Statistics.
No offence intended Kilkrazy, but when I'm in my local area, and I see post offices getting turned over, and corner shop owners fighting off armed robbers, I don't have the luxury of thinking that things aren't so bad just because some egghead in the national statistics office, sitting in his ivory tower, thinks the overall crime trend is down on his charts and graphs!
The problem is that statistically speaking there will always be areas of higher crime than average and always areas much lower than average simply because there will always be a statistical variation across the country. It is likely locally that there may be more crimes going on, but caution needs to be applied when considering the country overall as this area of high crime will be offset by an area of low crime. This is why local anecodotal evidence is not a good indicator of what crime overall is like in the country. That doesn't help you locally but it can't be used as an example of what the country as whole is like. You will get the same approximate distruibution regardless of what the average crime rate was, there wil always be areas higher (and a few much higher) as well as lower.
As for arming people, that is simply a crazy idea. As it stands murder is rare because shooting and killing someone is likely to lead to a life sentence, whereas a plain robbery will risk is much less for the same reward. If you arm the populace, all of a sudden that robbery becomes more risky. Is the shop keeper reaching for money in the till, or the shotgun. This leads to a risk that if the thief gets it wrong they get shot. Hence the criminal is likely to shoot first just in case. This then becomes an arms race as each side protects themselves from the potential consequences. Then the police have to become fully armed making them even more of a target and it wouldn't be long until someone shoots someone over a relatively minor infraction or fear that they are going to get attached (e.g. road rage).
Kilkrazy wrote: We're talking about three different things here. One is the perception of crime, the other is the reporting of crime locally, and the third is the national statistics on crime.
The latter figures (compiled outside Scotland by analysis of three different sets of data) give the most accurate picture of fluctuations in different types of crimes.
Local crime reporting, while factual in itself, doesn't give the kind of high quality analysis you get from the Office of National Statistics.
No offence intended Kilkrazy, but when I'm in my local area, and I see post offices getting turned over, and corner shop owners fighting off armed robbers, I don't have the luxury of thinking that things aren't so bad just because some egghead in the national statistics office, sitting in his ivory tower, thinks the overall crime trend is down on his charts and graphs!
We're under siege up here, and people are wondering why they bother paying their taxes!
Perhaps it'd be easier to get something done if you stopped claiming "crime is on the rise!" without any proof and started focussing on local crime issues that need to be dealt with instead?
Kilkrazy wrote: We're talking about three different things here. One is the perception of crime, the other is the reporting of crime locally, and the third is the national statistics on crime.
The latter figures (compiled outside Scotland by analysis of three different sets of data) give the most accurate picture of fluctuations in different types of crimes.
Local crime reporting, while factual in itself, doesn't give the kind of high quality analysis you get from the Office of National Statistics.
No offence intended Kilkrazy, but when I'm in my local area, and I see post offices getting turned over, and corner shop owners fighting off armed robbers, I don't have the luxury of thinking that things aren't so bad just because some egghead in the national statistics office, sitting in his ivory tower, thinks the overall crime trend is down on his charts and graphs!
We're under siege up here, and people are wondering why they bother paying their taxes!
What's your postcode? You can get crime stats from the Scottish Government. They have time series data.
TBH I'm a bit suspicious that PO blags rose so sharply after you moved back to your old gaff. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse, eh. Say no more.
In smaller communities, you can get sudden crime waves. We had a problem there for a while where my parents live, lots of people's houses getting hit and so on.
In isolated rural areas with elderly populations it feels a lot worse, because you are on your own with regard to responses from the police in most cases - like if you're a widow on your own out there, a criminal breaking in means you are pretty much entirely on your own.
In our case it turned out it was a polish fella and his three sons who were having a good time robbing us blind. Pretty surprising - usually it's local lads.
It was on radio 4 this morning, discussing the "gig economy". Tbf, this has been going on for decades, I remember working under a similar "self employed" scenario as a courier. Whilst it clearly works for some, it is easy to abuse, and those being abused are often powerless, and poor with few options.
Many employers are good employers, who offer a fair deal and look after their staff even when using zero hour contracts. They realise that happy and well looked after staff are generally loyal and more productive. But some people are just exploitative and willing to abuse. How do you deal with people like that, without damaging the system for the people it works for?
r_squared wrote: So, Theresa May asking for help from the other parties.
What is going on?
At the moment it seems like the politics rulebook has been binned off completely.
What's next I wonder?
Tories brought it all on themselves. Every last bit of it.
Time to watch them be hoisted by their own petard, I say.
Oh, I agree. People need to see the failure of their ideology, and come to realise that they've been lead down the garden path and lied to. They cannot be told, they must see it for themselves.
Conservatism as the party for the workers is being shown to be a lie. Their belief that unfettered business' will generate wealth for the whole of society with trickle down economics is total bunk. Wealth is definitely created, and it spreads out a little, but not very much.
If you doubt this, why, as one of the wealthiest nations in the world, is the state still having to subsidise private workers pay through in work benefits? Trickle down should mean that the business are free to pay a living wage to all workers, but clearly it's not.
The conservatives also talk about building an economy strong enough to pay for a public sector, by cutting the public sector mercilessly. The only public sector their strong economy will support is the tiny, small government model they desire. They're not interested in providing pensions, or health care or infrastructure, they want private companies to provide that and reduce the state to, effectively, the houses of parliament, and not much else.
That suits the professional classes, as they will continue to be able to afford the standard of living we currently enjoy, but the working classes will be fethed.
I know some might consider me callous for this, and to be honest I'm amongst them, but we need to let The Tories blow up Brexit, big style.
To me, that's only way we can see their current ideology pushed into the political wilderness, it's failures writ large.
As a bonus, it might also help end the strangle hold the right wing gutter press have - after all, they were vociferous in their support for Brexit, and are the ones demanding it be as hard as it can be.
The only issue is, this is going to hurt. It's the socio-political equivalent of having legs cut off to save the body - without anaesthetic. And it's the little people that are going to be hit the hardest.
But it's necessary. Right now, Theresa May has ensured it'll be a debacle, and singularly failed to rig herself up a scapegoat. If that's not outrageous political incompetence, I don't know what is.
The only other alternative is the Tories realise they're hopelessly outmatch in Brexit negotiations, and plump for a second 'OMG are you really, actually, properly sure' referendum - which has a good chance of a 'lord no! Call it off! Shut them all down R2!' outcome.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I know some might consider me callous for this...But it's necessary.
All I could think of whilst reading this.
With regards to May appealing for cross-party consensus, it was restricted primarily to one issue, namely how to deal with the gig economy. And frankly, I actually like it. This absurd Americanised system we have right now where both parties shout and scoff at each other all day and put party before country is disgusting. It gets even worse when you realise that it wasn't always like that. The sort of action May is asking for on commissioning legislation to effectively combat the depredations of the gig economy used to be an option.
Seriously. I spend a lot of time buried in late 19th/early 20th century Hansard at the moment, and politicians occasionally used to put party differences to one side when something important to the nation was at stake. It's the reason why Parliamentary Inquiries have politicians from all stripes on board. Party is not supposed to come before service to the nation.
Yet Corbyn's response is very much in the American two party 'feth you, your dog, and the horse you rode in on' style, even though he has a chance now to substantively affect important workers rights legislation.
This is important to so many people around the country right now. It's a chance for all parties to actually pass something that helps to protect the British worker. Now is not the time to be wasting time on juvenile political bickering. I mean, if Corbyn's response to this opportunity to influence this legislation is to prefer to lob a couple of rocks at a PM that's not going anywhere for a few years at least? It'll show him to be the worst kind of champagne socialist. Politics above people.
Because with thing the way they are, Maybot will simply claim any good idea that works was her idea all along, and her Puppet Masters in the gutter press will say the same thing.
It's time to watch the Tories sink under the weight of their own gross incompetence.
Ah. So it doesn't matter if people get screwed over for the next several years. Just so long as the Tories take a bad headline which gets forgotten in a week. Priorities first, right?
I agree with the above. The US two-party feth You Aresholes system is clearly broken and we don't want to imitate it in the UK.
Corbyn I think was making a good political point to offer May a copy of the Labour manifesto. I sniggered at that.
If May wants everyone to come with their ideas she needs to set up a special committee with representatives from all parties. That's how it is done, not by whiffling and speechifying slogans.
Ketara wrote: Ah. So it doesn't matter if people get screwed over for the next several years. Just so long as the Tories take a bad headline which gets forgotten in a week. Priorities first, right?
Tories have been screwing us for 7 years mate.
It's high time they took the political kicking that's long overdue.
Brexit is a bad idea. It's going to damage the economy. I just don't want to see The Tories left with any kind of scapegoat is all. They foisted this upon us. Senior members lied and lied and lied again throughout the campaign, and that heavily influenced the outcome.
Since then it's been one disaster after another. We're botching the negotiations already. If we can't stand out ground and get a half way decent deal out of the EU, what chance do we have against other countries when it comes to trade deals there?
That the Tories are, and always will, stuff this up is now unavoidable. The silver lining is that this could well bury their current neo-liberal approach for a long, long time.
If May wants everyone to come with their ideas she needs to set up a special committee with representatives from all parties. That's how it is done, not by whiffling and speechifying slogans.
Seconded. It would show her to be making a genuine offer instead of just maneuvering. By the same measure though, she hasn't actually made the speech yet asking for cross-party input, it's all just been leaks so far. We'll see how serious she is when she finally makes her announcement.
It's high time they took the political kicking that's long overdue.
Call it what you like, you're still advocating party politics ahead of people. With all due respect, that's not my cup of tea, and I won't be talked round on it.
It was on radio 4 this morning, discussing the "gig economy". Tbf, this has been going on for decades, I remember working under a similar "self employed" scenario as a courier. Whilst it clearly works for some, it is easy to abuse, and those being abused are often powerless, and poor with few options.
Many employers are good employers, who offer a fair deal and look after their staff even when using zero hour contracts. They realise that happy and well looked after staff are generally loyal and more productive. But some people are just exploitative and willing to abuse. How do you deal with people like that, without damaging the system for the people it works for?
Tricky.
This case isn't about a gig economy or zero hours contracts. This is 100% about abuse of staff. Couriers and Uber drivers are a bit of a gray area, where there is an argument they are self employed contractors as they have a relative degree of freedom in how and when they carry out their jobs. Uber give a list of possible pickups and it is up to the driver if they take them, if they are working, what hours they do work etc. Some (depending on the company) couriers get a choice of when they work, and when they do they get a pile of items to deliver, but have choice about the route they take, breaks they take etc as long as they deliver in the agreed timescale.
This case these people had set hours of work, no control over how they worked, had to be in work when their boss said, could not refuse to and were clear that they could not work for anyone else. This does not look anything like a self employed person. This is illegal.
If May wants everyone to come with their ideas she needs to set up a special committee with representatives from all parties. That's how it is done, not by whiffling and speechifying slogans.
Seconded. It would show her to be making a genuine offer instead of just maneuvering. By the same measure though, she hasn't actually made the speech yet asking for cross-party input, it's all just been leaks so far. We'll see how serious she is when she finally makes her announcement.
It's high time they took the political kicking that's long overdue.
Call it what you like, you're still advocating party politics ahead of people. With all due respect, that's not my cup of tea, and I won't be talked round on it.
I disagree that it's party politics, so much as an opportunity for us to redress the balance of power.
Before my time, I'm told the Unions had far too much power. I honestly don't know about that, because I wasn't there.
Now, it's all in the hands of ex-pat tax exile media barons. They repeatedly back the Tories, and are happy to lie through their teeth if they think there's another tax cut in it for them.
To see the Tories flounder with nobody else to realistically pin the blame on is exactly what we need to break that stranglehold. Dacre, Murdoch and Co have endorsed politics and politicians that have done nothing but lasting harm to our country. That's why they're so anti-Corbyn. Never mind his politics, they never saw him coming. That means they've not spent the last few decades trying to get him in their pocket by hook or by crook.
If Corbyn caves (and I really hope he doesn't), then you can guess who'll cop the blame for the ensuing recession. Here's a hint - it won't be the Tories.
You cannot tell me that a single party benefitting from an increasingly corrupt and dishonest press is at all good for democracy?
Ketara wrote: ...if Corbyn's response to this opportunity to influence this legislation is to prefer to lob a couple of rocks at a PM that's not going anywhere for a few years at least? It'll show him to be the worst kind of champagne socialist. Politics above people.
Corbyn believes that another GE is coming, and the Labour party is still in campaign mode. He genuinely believes that he is the right leader for the job of Prime Minister, and can lead the country through the most turbulent mess any political party has inflicted on the nation in decades. He, and many others incidentally, certainly don't believe that May or the conservatives are not going anywhere for a few years.
With that in mind, why would anyone co-operate on what will be a Tory dominated legislation, when you could be ousting them and doing things your own way anyway?
Besides, trusting Theresa May, or the conservatives is like trusting a greased adder, she'll say one thing and U-turn faster than a boomerang on amphetamines. This was in no way a genuine plea for consensus, it's part of the political game she's trying to play, to draw the other parties in, and get them to take the fall. Just like they did with the Lib Dems.
Corbyn is absolutely right to tell her to feth off. Working with the conservative party, as they currently are, is an instrument for disaster for any party, and for the country. They have absolutely, and consistently put party before country, and have fethed this up themselves. Things are going to get gak for a while thanks to them, and people will suffer, but there was a lot of willingness to accept "short term pain for long term gain" amongst Brexiteers. I for one am definitely worried about the future, I have been since the announcement of the referendum, but if it means a radical roots up rethink of our national political system, and the splintering and discrediting of the right, then I think it'd probably be worth it for future generations.
It was on radio 4 this morning, discussing the "gig economy". Tbf, this has been going on for decades, I remember working under a similar "self employed" scenario as a courier. Whilst it clearly works for some, it is easy to abuse, and those being abused are often powerless, and poor with few options.
Many employers are good employers, who offer a fair deal and look after their staff even when using zero hour contracts. They realise that happy and well looked after staff are generally loyal and more productive. But some people are just exploitative and willing to abuse. How do you deal with people like that, without damaging the system for the people it works for?
Tricky.
This case isn't about a gig economy or zero hours contracts. This is 100% about abuse of staff. Couriers and Uber drivers are a bit of a gray area, where there is an argument they are self employed contractors as they have a relative degree of freedom in how and when they carry out their jobs. Uber give a list of possible pickups and it is up to the driver if they take them, if they are working, what hours they do work etc. Some (depending on the company) couriers get a choice of when they work, and when they do they get a pile of items to deliver, but have choice about the route they take, breaks they take etc as long as they deliver in the agreed timescale.
This case these people had set hours of work, no control over how they worked, had to be in work when their boss said, could not refuse to and were clear that they could not work for anyone else. This does not look anything like a self employed person. This is illegal.
Well yes, I did mention that the system of zero hours contracts and self employment is open to abuse and exploitation, and the radio program I listened to was discussing the Taylor review. Which, whilst obviously different to the link which describes a thoroughly illegal set of practices, is related to a culture of exploitation of employment laws thats been in place for decades. Your last sentence particulary, exactly described the conditions I worked under as a courier back in the 90s, so these "employment" cultures have been around for a while. As for couriers, believe me, there isn't much "choice" about routings or breaks when you dispatch, you're very much a whipped mule.
I'm of the opinion that for the most part, all mainstream political parties and position have good and bad points, and all will feth up stuff equally as much as fix it. The trick is to swap them in and out of government in such an order that a rough status quo is maintained.
Accordingly, to me? Any political opinion that starts with 'X are evil gits therefore we need to do absolutely anything to get rid of them' is just missing the better points of that party and the fact the replacements will do just as badly (albeit in different fields). And therefore promoting removing a party at all costs is championing party politics above the wellbeing of the country.
Well yes, I did mention that the system of zero hours contracts and self employment is open to abuse and exploitation, and the radio program I listened to was discussing the Taylor review. Which, whilst obviously different to the link which describes a thoroughly illegal set of practices, is related to a culture of exploitation of employment laws thats been in place for decades. Your last sentence particulary, exactly described the conditions I worked under as a courier back in the 90s, so these "employment" cultures have been around for a while. As for couriers, believe me, there isn't much "choice" about routings or breaks when you dispatch, you're very much a whipped mule.
It is, but my point is that this case is not about abuse or exploitation. It's a flagrantly illegal act. The full force of the law needs to come down hard on these people who are wrongfully claiming employees are self employed. It sounds like you were an employee, and the law is quite clear about who is and is not an employee. The law does not need changing (well, it does, but not for this reason), it needs enforcement and education. Educate the public about this kind of abuse so people complain and come down hard on employers, and those employees that knowingly abuse this law for their gain (for example contractors abusing IR35 rules).
It was on radio 4 this morning, discussing the "gig economy". Tbf, this has been going on for decades, I remember working under a similar "self employed" scenario as a courier. Whilst it clearly works for some, it is easy to abuse, and those being abused are often powerless, and poor with few options.
Many employers are good employers, who offer a fair deal and look after their staff even when using zero hour contracts. They realise that happy and well looked after staff are generally loyal and more productive. But some people are just exploitative and willing to abuse. How do you deal with people like that, without damaging the system for the people it works for?
Tricky.
This case isn't about a gig economy or zero hours contracts. This is 100% about abuse of staff. Couriers and Uber drivers are a bit of a gray area, where there is an argument they are self employed contractors as they have a relative degree of freedom in how and when they carry out their jobs.
Some countries have coded a sort of "self-employed but dependent" giving some protections that are usually only available to hired workers to otherwise self-employed people.
It requires that you make something like 80% of your turnover from a single client, but of course it requires the paying company to acknowledge the situation (which may lead to labour inspections).
My wife found herself like that for over two years, when a single customer basically had her on retainer and couldn't take anything else excepta few minor jobs (she's a graphic designer, btw) so it's not always questionable business practices that lead to this situation.
Ketara wrote: Ah. So it doesn't matter if people get screwed over for the next several years.
...Oooh, I know this one :
Not if we " take back control."... err.... blue passports.. and something something written on a bus
.. no ?
Meanwhile :
Theresa May says it was "entirely reasonable" for Ivanka Trump to take her father's seat at the G20 summit.
Uh huh.
Of course.
I'm not sure if this is further evidence of May having the spinal strength of a paraplegic amoeba or yet another display about how we don't need experts anymore, apparently.
TBF perhaps that'll be our Brexit talks strategy :
we'll send along some entirely unconnected to the UK and/or unqualified -- and as/when/if there's no palatable deal simply cry out that said person isn't in fact anything to do with us at all so the whole thing thus far is null and void and we need to start over again.
I joke of course, that's more of a plan than we do have.
Besides, the "screw people" part is already done with Brexit. Mostly on the side who didn't want it, but that people like Ketara basically said "suck it up". Now it's the opposite situation, and suddenly it's all about uniting everyone for the sake of the country?
No kidding. You can't expect to have the others listening when they were despised not so long ago by the "winning side". And anyway...why would they believe it would be so worst? For them, it's already happening. If the people guilty of this mess could get to pay the real price hard for good, it's just a small compensation.
The Tories show they're doing a great job in sinking themselves all alone, like grown men and women. They made this mess and call their enemies to sink in it with them for free ? I believe the logical answer would be "no thanks".
Not if we " take back control."... err.... blue passports.. and something something written on a bus
Sarouan wrote:Besides, the "screw people" part is already done with Brexit. Mostly on the side who didn't want it, but that people like Ketara basically said "suck it up". Now it's the opposite situation, and suddenly it's all about uniting everyone for the sake of the country?.
I don't recall ever telling anyone to suck it up about Brexit? Far as I'm concerned, people are free to kvetch all they like about things they don't like. So I'm not sure what 'people like me' are saying that sounds like that, since if they sounded like me, they wouldn't be saying that all. I am mildly entertained however, that when I mention the absurd degree of separatism and factionalism on a specific issue (the gig economy), and absurdity of going all in on the side of any one party (because they're all bastards in different ways, as easily proved by the last hundred years of political history), it immediately gets bitterly conflated with the Brexit.
I mean, seriously? Brexit happened so now the country absolutely has to go up in flames to teach everyone who disagrees a lesson? It's cool for the gig economy to keep on going so that the Tories might (and it's not even certain) get another bad headline at some undefined point in the future? Labour should do everything they can to make the country a worse place in the hope that it might hurt May's reputation a little?
Jesus Christ Almighty.
Just to separate things out a little here for the record (since some people seem highly confused), when I said before that I thought it would be worth a little pain if the country left Europe? That's because I was basing it on avoiding worse issues of a different kind I thought were likely coming further down the road. Sort of a 'swerve and hit a granny to avoid the ten schoolchildren in the road ahead' scenario. I may have been right, or wrong. Either way? I had what I thought was best for the country in mind when I voted. It's not quite the same thing as 'Let's screw over everyone as much as possible to try and hurt a generic political faction'.
Unless of course, you're one of those people who believes that Labour is so much infinitely better for the country, and the Tories are just evil baby-eating Nazis in disguise. If you're one of them, I understand how 'Getting rid of the Tories by any means or costs necessary' would align with 'For the Good of the Country' in your eyes. I might think you're a little bit crazy, but I understand how the two would line up for you.
Theresa May says it was "entirely reasonable" for Ivanka Trump to take her father's seat at the G20 summit.
Uh huh.
Of course.
I'm not sure if this is further evidence of May having the spinal strength of a paraplegic amoeba or yet another display about how we don't need experts anymore, apparently.
Even Angela Merkel was OK with it. She said something along the lines of "Ivanka is a part of the Trump delegation and its perfectly normal for delegates to sit in for leaders".
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I know some might consider me callous for this...But it's necessary.
This absurd Americanised system we have right now where both parties shout and scoff at each other all day and put party before country is disgusting.
Kilkrazy wrote:I agree with the above. The US two-party feth You Aresholes system is clearly broken and we don't want to imitate it in the UK.
Whilst the US system is very much a two-party affair, it really isn't fair to suggest that we've borrowed the hard-nosed, us vs them, party-before-everything attitude from them. That has very much been our gift to the world. US politicians have vastly more autonomy than UKMPs, MSPs, AMs, and MLAs do, almost to the point that they're utterly incomparable. They clash with their leaders and administrations far more frequently than UK politicians do (near-relentlessly, at the minute!) and regularly vote against them in favour of what they think is right for the country, almost always without recourse.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And if it was Chelsea Clinton, filling in for her mother? Would you still feel the same way?
Of course I would, it's banana republic horsegak regardless of ideological affiliation. But HRC is a smoother operator than that and wouldn't prop up her daughter in such an clumsy manner.
Not if we " take back control."... err.... blue passports.. and something something written on a bus
Sarouan wrote:Besides, the "screw people" part is already done with Brexit. Mostly on the side who didn't want it, but that people like Ketara basically said "suck it up". Now it's the opposite situation, and suddenly it's all about uniting everyone for the sake of the country?.
I don't recall ever telling anyone to suck it up about Brexit? Far as I'm concerned, people are free to kvetch all they like about things they don't like. So I'm not sure what 'people like me' are saying that sounds like that, since if they sounded like me, they wouldn't be saying that all. I am mildly entertained however, that when I mention the absurd degree of separatism and factionalism on a specific issue (the gig economy), and absurdity of going all in on the side of any one party (because they're all bastards in different ways, as easily proved by the last hundred years of political history), it immediately gets bitterly conflated with the Brexit.
I mean, seriously? Brexit happened so now the country absolutely has to go up in flames to teach everyone who disagrees a lesson? It's cool for the gig economy to keep on going so that the Tories might (and it's not even certain) get another bad headline at some undefined point in the future? Labour should do everything they can to make the country a worse place in the hope that it might hurt May's reputation a little?
Jesus Christ Almighty.
Just to separate things out a little here for the record (since some people seem highly confused), when I said before that I thought it would be worth a little pain if the country left Europe? That's because I was basing it on avoiding worse issues of a different kind I thought were likely coming further down the road. Sort of a 'swerve and hit a granny to avoid the ten schoolchildren in the road ahead' scenario. I may have been right, or wrong. Either way? I had what I thought was best for the country in mind when I voted. It's not quite the same thing as 'Let's screw over everyone as much as possible to try and hurt a generic political faction'.
Unless of course, you're one of those people who believes that Labour is so much infinitely better for the country, and the Tories are just evil baby-eating Nazis in disguise. If you're one of them, I understand how 'Getting rid of the Tories by any means or costs necessary' would align with 'For the Good of the Country' in your eyes. I might think you're a little bit crazy, but I understand how the two would line up for you.
Oh come off it, you're basically trying to paint this as those of us who are willing to put up with a little pain to remove and weaken the poisonous ideology puported by the Tories as somehow morally reprehensible compared to someone who voted to tell the EU to piss off?
I personally vehemently believe that the Tories are real threat to the country, every decision they have made has been for their own survival to the detriment of the country, and they continue to do so. They must be removed, and broken up in order to protect the country.
I believe that that is for the good of the country, don't try saying that because you disagree that you hold the moral high ground, because you absolutely do not.
Oh come off it, you're basically trying to paint this as those of us who are willing to put up with a little pain to remove and weaken the poisonous ideology puported by the Tories as somehow morally reprehensible compared to someone who voted to tell the EU to piss off?
Nope.
I personally vehemently believe that the Tories are real threat to the country, every decision they have made has been for their own survival to the detriment of the country, and they continue to do so. They must be removed, and broken up in order to protect the country.
See, I don't have a problem with someone believing the Tories are bad for the country, and that they should be gotten rid of. Don't even mind the 'little bit of pain' stated above. The country goes through that quite frequently, albeit in constantly revolving sectors. It's how economies work. What I do goggle at slightly is this sort of thing:-
Mad Doc wrote:I know some might consider me callous for this, and to be honest I'm amongst them, but we need to let The Tories blow up Brexit, big style.....The only issue is, this is going to hurt. It's the socio-political equivalent of having legs cut off to save the body - without anaesthetic. And it's the little people that are going to be hit the hardest.
But it's necessary.
Effectively saying that you want to this country to economically self-destruct? In order to do a bit of damage (and it will be a bit, the public forgets everything in a decade) to a single political faction? Sorry, no. I don't bite on the whole 'I think the whole country should get financially fethed in so many ways to get me a few anti-Tory headlines'. If I thought for one minute that leaving the EU would leave millions on the dole and a tenfold increase in home foreclosures, I'd never have voted the way I did.
Not to mention that in my mind, whether we stay in the EU or not was a generational issue of importance tenfold above which self obsessed spanker ends up living in Number 10 for the next handful of years. As said before, they're all going to screw us over in one way or another. Anyone who would happily put up with a repeat of the Wall Street Crash in order to teach us that the Tory ideology is bad clearly has a worse ideology than the Tories. I mean, 'People should all go through loads of suffering in order to educate them to think the same thoughts as me'? Really?
Sorry, but I do put myself on a higher moral ground than that. I'm not so arrogant to think that my view of the world is so truthful as to be worth the misery of millions. I've no problem with what you said there; I do have a problem with what Grotsnik posted up top. He himself said that it was 'callous', I'm merely agreeing.
arses in gear.
) then they're in for a shock.
