Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The GE2017 BBC leaders debate that TMay dodged – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited June 13 in General
imageThe GE2017 BBC leaders debate that TMay dodged – politicalbetting.com

There has been a lot of coverage in the past day also about out a YouGov poll that was said to have been carried out after the BBC leaders debate at the 2017 general election.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 5,877
    edited June 9
    On topic. So you are suggesting there was motive for the phone calls to be made?

    Correct me where wrong. On the one hand they are private firms - on the other they have to abide by some industry regulation? So between the two, has to be possible not to break any rules doing what you like in face of internal and external pressure.

    The other thing that leaps out, hadn’t Amber suffered bearevment but still stood in for cowardly May? The Conservative Party treated Rudd very poorly overall. 😕
  • PensfoldPensfold Posts: 167
    Second - or am I missing something?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 45,452
    What is an "Amber Rudd"?
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 642
    rcs1000 said:

    What is an "Amber Rudd"?

    Sounds like a game fish.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,196
    Amber Rudd... there's a name from the past... had to check if she was even an MP still, she has vanished. The sort of no -nonsense individual who would have stood up to BJ in Cabinet and had no loyalty to the sex-crazed liar who is PM. There is a reckoning out there for BJ (T May has been extremely quiet) led by the grandees...I reckon this Summer could be quite entertaining and not because of the Commonwealth games
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,861

    Amber Rudd... there's a name from the past... had to check if she was even an MP still, she has vanished. The sort of no -nonsense individual who would have stood up to BJ in Cabinet and had no loyalty to the sex-crazed liar who is PM. There is a reckoning out there for BJ (T May has been extremely quiet) led by the grandees...I reckon this Summer could be quite entertaining and not because of the Commonwealth games

    Oddly, there do not appear to be any betting markets on the Commonwealth Games. So, to tide us over:

    FIFA World Cup - Group B
    Khalifa International Stadium
    21 November

    England 2/5
    Draw 4/1
    Iran 11/1

    (The countries have never met before.)
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,861
    Yesterday’s Conservative motion that the Scottish Parliament cancel the second independence referendum failed:

    For cancellation 53
    Against cancellation 67
    Abstention 1

    The Unionists are running out of road.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,861

    Foxy said:

    The RMT are seeking an 11% payrise

    I expect this will not work out as they hope

    Quite a lot of polling support for them in today's Yougov:

    38% support, 49% oppose the striking workers.

    Support strongest with the under 65s.
    4.2% in Scotland and most likely to be in that ball park
    I concur.

    As a trade union rep in the rail industry myself (and former signaller), albeit in an EU country with lower inflation than England & Her Satellite States*, I’d be bloody delighted with 4.2%.

    Inflation rates February:
    Sweden 4.3%
    England etc 6.2%

    Mind you, the BBC headlines this morning are a shit-show for the economy. It was just a stream of appalling stories for people’s wallets. They rounded it off by saying that inflation will soon be over 10%. You can understand why signalling staff etc are apprehensive.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128
    rcs1000 said:

    What is an "Amber Rudd"?

    A slightly less crazy version of an. Amber Heard?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,958
    May was right not to attend; she'd have been awful.

    The mistake was sending Amber Rudd in her place. It made her just look like she'd chickened out and couldn't face the music, and when you send an underlying it gives a terrible message about your leadership.

    She'd have done better if she'd insisted the Conservatives didn't attend altogether.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,258
    Boris Johnson is killing the Scottish Tories, writes Magnus Linklater in Comment

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/772df7ea-e775-11ec-aa87-2eea7c6e5b01?shareToken=8710a22eb5ba6627c6dc8b7827a94a84
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,290
    Scott_xP said:

    Boris Johnson is killing the Scottish Tories, writes Magnus Linklater in Comment

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/772df7ea-e775-11ec-aa87-2eea7c6e5b01?shareToken=8710a22eb5ba6627c6dc8b7827a94a84

    To understand how badly Boris is polling, I checked and this is true
    Boris latest Scottish rating (-71) is the same as Putin's UK wide rating according to Yougov.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,988
    Scott_xP said:

    Brexit cheerleader Iain Martin in The Times today has written another in what seems to be a growing series of articles subtitled "Brexit, it's a bit shit isn't it..."

    Exports to the EU in 2021 were down almost 12 per cent on 2018. UK exports to the rest of the world fell by about half that percentage. In January the City broker IG said exports to the EU may fall by almost 8 per cent again by 2025.

    There’s no use some of my fellow Brexiteers putting their fingers in their ears and humming Rule Britannia. To deny the downsides of Brexit on trade with the EU is to deny reality.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/painful-as-it-is-we-need-to-talk-about-brexit-fj7bg2nql

    The comments are not universally kind.

    Just more Project Fear lies.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,598
    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 6,041
    Scott_xP said:

    Brexit cheerleader Iain Martin in The Times today has written another in what seems to be a growing series of articles subtitled "Brexit, it's a bit shit isn't it..."

    Exports to the EU in 2021 were down almost 12 per cent on 2018. UK exports to the rest of the world fell by about half that percentage. In January the City broker IG said exports to the EU may fall by almost 8 per cent again by 2025.

    There’s no use some of my fellow Brexiteers putting their fingers in their ears and humming Rule Britannia. To deny the downsides of Brexit on trade with the EU is to deny reality.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/painful-as-it-is-we-need-to-talk-about-brexit-fj7bg2nql

    The comments are not universally kind.

    It does have the same flaw as some arguments we see here- the desire for better UK-EU relations is great, but doesn't mean much unless we specify what we are prepared to offer (alignment broadly on their terms) to get what we want (smoother access to their market).

    Anything else is just Project Unicorn.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,258

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Nope.

    The people who voted for Nigel Fucking Farage and his racist posters didn't care about economic trade
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,988

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,196

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    The Farage line was that Belgians would continue selling chocolates, the Germans selling us cars and the French wine... God it was heard to drown out that snake oil salesman (Farage).......and as for that bloody bus, talk about a distraction.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,598
    Mr. xP, your memory fails you. Farage was a drag on the Leave campaign, and the referendum was decided by the floating (majority, perhaps) voters who were neither really into the EU nor really against but it didn't like the politics and did like the economics.

    Both campaigns were run terribly but "We can do anything" (while hopelessly optimistic and obviously wrong) was a better approach than "We'll all die in poverty and the country will fall into the sea without Mother EU to protect us".

    Sometimes, in my more masochistic moments, I'm tempted to compare the Remain and May 2017 campaigns to see which was worse.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 70,290
    On trade, I assumed once we were out dealing with any one country within the EU would be the same as dealing with any within the rest of the world.
    This is not the case !
    The EU single market is something you really really want to be inside if possible due to the way VAT works within it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,202
    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.
  • swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,196

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    soldiers in the Army have had a pay cut of about 28% in real terms since 2010, sadly (and fortunately for us) they cannot go on strike
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 18,202

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    soldiers in the Army have had a pay cut of about 28% in real terms since 2010, sadly (and fortunately for us) they cannot go on strike
    And?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 36,877
    Pulpstar said:

    On trade, I assumed once we were out dealing with any one country within the EU would be the same as dealing with any within the rest of the world.
    This is not the case !
    The EU single market is something you really really want to be inside if possible due to the way VAT works within it.

    Hard to believe anyone was that naive
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 8,861
    Scott_xP said:

    Boris Johnson is killing the Scottish Tories, writes Magnus Linklater in Comment

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/772df7ea-e775-11ec-aa87-2eea7c6e5b01?shareToken=8710a22eb5ba6627c6dc8b7827a94a84

    It’s a mercy killing.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,534
    edited June 9

    Scott_xP said:

    Brexit cheerleader Iain Martin in The Times today has written another in what seems to be a growing series of articles subtitled "Brexit, it's a bit shit isn't it..."

    Exports to the EU in 2021 were down almost 12 per cent on 2018. UK exports to the rest of the world fell by about half that percentage. In January the City broker IG said exports to the EU may fall by almost 8 per cent again by 2025.

    There’s no use some of my fellow Brexiteers putting their fingers in their ears and humming Rule Britannia. To deny the downsides of Brexit on trade with the EU is to deny reality.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/painful-as-it-is-we-need-to-talk-about-brexit-fj7bg2nql

    The comments are not universally kind.

    It does have the same flaw as some arguments we see here- the desire for better UK-EU relations is great, but doesn't mean much unless we specify what we are prepared to offer (alignment broadly on their terms) to get what we want (smoother access to their market).

    Anything else is just Project Unicorn.
    Good morning all. Summer seems to be back.

    This does all seem to come down, once again, to which leading politician is going to be brave enough to finally tell voters that the current Brexit deal, as specified and agreed by both sides , just isn't working, and not because of the cartoony "evil EU" or dastardly foreigners.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,939

    Amber Rudd... there's a name from the past... had to check if she was even an MP still, she has vanished. The sort of no -nonsense individual who would have stood up to BJ in Cabinet and had no loyalty to the sex-crazed liar who is PM. There is a reckoning out there for BJ (T May has been extremely quiet) led by the grandees...I reckon this Summer could be quite entertaining and not because of the Commonwealth games

    You don’t want the Rudd family anywhere near the cabinet. It was a gross error of judgement by May
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,909

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    soldiers in the Army have had a pay cut of about 28% in real terms since 2010, sadly (and fortunately for us) they cannot go on strike
    Owing to government cuts, there are about 25,000 fewer soldiers than in 2010 so if they did go on strike, there'd not be as many picket lines. Still, Jeremy Corbyn eh.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,939
    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Boris Johnson is killing the Scottish Tories, writes Magnus Linklater in Comment

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/772df7ea-e775-11ec-aa87-2eea7c6e5b01?shareToken=8710a22eb5ba6627c6dc8b7827a94a84

    To understand how badly Boris is polling, I checked and this is true
    Boris latest Scottish rating (-71) is the same as Putin's UK wide rating according to Yougov.
    To be fair that just suggests the Scots lack perspective.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 8,433

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    I doubt it. When one side is offering a non stop diet of lies, unicorns, bullshit and flag shagging Rule Brittania nonsense it's hard for the other side to get a hearing. It seems like Brexit is one of those things that the English needed to experience in order to realise it was a bad idea. A failure of imagination I suppose.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 8,433

    Pulpstar said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Boris Johnson is killing the Scottish Tories, writes Magnus Linklater in Comment

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/772df7ea-e775-11ec-aa87-2eea7c6e5b01?shareToken=8710a22eb5ba6627c6dc8b7827a94a84

    To understand how badly Boris is polling, I checked and this is true
    Boris latest Scottish rating (-71) is the same as Putin's UK wide rating according to Yougov.
    To be fair that just suggests the Scots lack perspective.
    The opposite actually. Putin is worse, but further away.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,056
    Lisa Nandy giving a pathetic performance on GMB. Cannot bring herself to support the right of the rail workers to withdraw their labour.

    this, from the party of labour.

    What a joke
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,820
    All fart, no follow through, mercifully.

    Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove says there will be a cap on the number of people on housing benefits who can benefit from right to buy extension

    https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/1534781114115579904
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,534
    edited June 9
    Taz said:

    Lisa Nandy giving a pathetic performance on GMB. Cannot bring herself to support the right of the rail workers to withdraw their labour.

    this, from the party of labour.

    What a joke

    Is it a neutral stance or against ? The reports the other day seemed to be that Starmer himself was taking a neutral and pro-compromises, rather than Blairite stance on current strikes, which would be good politics for him in the Red Wall, and in a number of other constituencies too.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,598
    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,820
    Chris Curtis has certainly blown the bloody doors off.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 15,988

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    Andrew Pierce says they are all already earning a whopping "£58,000" (!?!) a year.

    I doubt ToryBoy earns that sort of dosh. A minimum wage earner, if ever I saw one! And his contribution to the nation is worth way, way more than someone who keeps the nations trains running like a Swiss watch.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,939

    Chris Curtis has certainly blown the bloody doors off.

    Didn’t you used to have a rule you couldn’t criticise pollsters’ motives on this website?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,258
    Strikes. Rocketing inflation. Record levels of taxation. Stagnant growth. Huge debt. Vast public spending. Welcome back the 1970s, we missed yer...
    https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1534785899195777025


    What would Thatcher do....?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,515

    Yesterday’s Conservative motion that the Scottish Parliament cancel the second independence referendum failed:

    For cancellation 53
    Against cancellation 67
    Abstention 1

    The Unionists are running out of road.

    A place the SNP and Greens are about to travel to.

    "Can we have a referendum?"
    "No"
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,412

    Chris Curtis has certainly blown the bloody doors off.

    Could we have some detail on this allegation? I am not sure what is alleged. I appreciate OGH has to be careful with some issues for legal reasons.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,820
    edited June 9
    Scott_xP said:

    Brexit cheerleader Iain Martin in The Times today has written another in what seems to be a growing series of articles subtitled "Brexit, it's a bit shit isn't it..."

    Exports to the EU in 2021 were down almost 12 per cent on 2018. UK exports to the rest of the world fell by about half that percentage. In January the City broker IG said exports to the EU may fall by almost 8 per cent again by 2025.

    There’s no use some of my fellow Brexiteers putting their fingers in their ears and humming Rule Britannia. To deny the downsides of Brexit on trade with the EU is to deny reality.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/painful-as-it-is-we-need-to-talk-about-brexit-fj7bg2nql

    The comments are not universally kind.

    It is dawning on quite a few Brexiteers that what Gove said privately in 2016 before the referendum might turn out to be prescient.

    If the electorate deems Brexit to be a failure then they will eventually vote to overturn it.

    Then Brexiteers will be like the Japanese civilians on Okinawa in May/June 1945.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 8,433

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 101,820
    Foxy said:

    Chris Curtis has certainly blown the bloody doors off.

    Could we have some detail on this allegation? I am not sure what is alleged. I appreciate OGH has to be careful with some issues for legal reasons.
    YouGov ‘banned’ release of 2017 leader debate poll because it was ‘too good for Labour’

    Ex-manager claims pollster was put under pressure by Tory MP founder

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-labour-yougov-2017-election-b2096555.html

    See this thread.

    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1534444485907779584

    I mean this story was doing the rounds at the time.


  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 58,598
    Mr. Boy, to an extent, I agree with you. But much of it was so overblown it provoked derision rather than concern.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,121

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    The point is that there was nothing positive about the campaign and it was merely an attempt to scare-monger.

    But since Tories were mostly running the show and that’s the style of campaigning that they are used to, perhaps it was no surprise?
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,515

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    The Farage line was that Belgians would continue selling chocolates, the Germans selling us cars and the French wine... God it was heard to drown out that snake oil salesman (Farage).......and as for that bloody bus, talk about a distraction.
    He was right - they are still selling those things. At a higher price. They on the other hand are buying less of our things because we're expensive and difficult for them to export to.

    A series of ONS stats out on Twitter showing just how badly both our economy and performance metrics like labour are tanking. The front page of The Times showing our performance is now worst in the G20 bar Russia.

    So we really have shit the bed here. And the tragedy is the government - aided and abetted by pliant lickspittles - keep denying this reality because the facts get in the way of their beliefs. So we can't do anything about it as the situation just gets worse.
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,765

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    The Farage line was that Belgians would continue selling chocolates, the Germans selling us cars and the French wine... God it was heard to drown out that snake oil salesman (Farage).......and as for that bloody bus, talk about a distraction.
    He was right - they are still selling those things. At a higher price. They on the other hand are buying less of our things because we're expensive and difficult for them to export to.

    A series of ONS stats out on Twitter showing just how badly both our economy and performance metrics like labour are tanking. The front page of The Times showing our performance is now worst in the G20 bar Russia.

    So we really have shit the bed here. And the tragedy is the government - aided and abetted by pliant lickspittles - keep denying this reality because the facts get in the way of their beliefs. So we can't do anything about it as the situation just gets worse.
    Its predicted performace for 2023, this year we are expected to grow the most of any G7 Country.

    Economic predictions are normally nonsense
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,398

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    The Farage line was that Belgians would continue selling chocolates, the Germans selling us cars and the French wine... God it was heard to drown out that snake oil salesman (Farage).......and as for that bloody bus, talk about a distraction.
    He was right - they are still selling those things. At a higher price. They on the other hand are buying less of our things because we're expensive and difficult for them to export to.

    A series of ONS stats out on Twitter showing just how badly both our economy and performance metrics like labour are tanking. The front page of The Times showing our performance is now worst in the G20 bar Russia.

    So we really have shit the bed here. And the tragedy is the government - aided and abetted by pliant lickspittles - keep denying this reality because the facts get in the way of their beliefs. So we can't do anything about it as the situation just gets worse.
    We've shit the bed and are still blaming the blankets.....
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,515

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    The Farage line was that Belgians would continue selling chocolates, the Germans selling us cars and the French wine... God it was heard to drown out that snake oil salesman (Farage).......and as for that bloody bus, talk about a distraction.
    He was right - they are still selling those things. At a higher price. They on the other hand are buying less of our things because we're expensive and difficult for them to export to.

    A series of ONS stats out on Twitter showing just how badly both our economy and performance metrics like labour are tanking. The front page of The Times showing our performance is now worst in the G20 bar Russia.

    So we really have shit the bed here. And the tragedy is the government - aided and abetted by pliant lickspittles - keep denying this reality because the facts get in the way of their beliefs. So we can't do anything about it as the situation just gets worse.
    Its predicted performace for 2023, this year we are expected to grow the most of any G7 Country.

    Economic predictions are normally nonsense
    Sentence 1: an economic prediction
    Sentence 2: "economic predictions are nonsense"
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,686

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    That is categorically untrue.

    I always said that it would be economically disruptive, but I think it will be worth it in the long run.

    The disruption though is up front, while the benefits are for the long term. Like a "hockey stick" chart.

    Sean made an analogy of it being painful "like childbirth".

    In fact the only people I've ever seen repeat a claim there'd be no pain, is Remainers talking to themselves about fictional windmill Leavers they're tilting at.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,412

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

    The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

    The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,752

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
    Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

    According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
    And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

    This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,752

    Chris Curtis has certainly blown the bloody doors off.

    Little known (until recently) Zahawi is coming into focus as another grade 1 Tory shit.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,752
    Foxy said:

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

    The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

    The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
    Still peddling the evidence free dream.
  • WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 6,534
    edited June 9
    Foxy said:

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

    The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

    The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
    However long it takes, I think it's Britain destiny to remain half-European and half-Atlantic in some form, economically and culturally. The current government attempts to defy economic and cultural gravity, and a millennium of history, with nonsense about being a Pacific country for trade, and having little connection with Europe for cultural exchange, and by comparison this very recent project will never hold.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,398

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    That is categorically untrue.

    I always said that it would be economically disruptive, but I think it will be worth it in the long run.

    The disruption though is up front, while the benefits are for the long term. Like a "hockey stick" chart.

    Sean made an analogy of it being painful "like childbirth".

    In fact the only people I've ever seen repeat a claim there'd be no pain, is Remainers talking to themselves about fictional windmill Leavers they're tilting at.
    Do you really think if this hockey stick view hadn't been suppressed the people would have voted for it? The lies and duplicity of some organisations never cease to amaze me. Even now they are blaming remainers for defeat when they told the truth about the economy.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,258
    A Brexiteer writes...

    The original solution promised by some Brexiteers was massive deregulation and open trade with the rest of the world to replace lost EU business and deliver a boom. This deregulation has not happened and is not going to happen, because this government is afraid of the impact on domestic industries such as agriculture. A successor government won’t deregulate much either and the voters don’t want it. This being the reality, Britain needs a better trading relationship with the EU.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,515
    edited June 9
    Must say that I enjoyed the Corruptiongate row of yesterday.

    MP Bob Seely explains why he voted confidence in the PM:
    "I talked again with ministers about why a fair funding package has not yet been forthcoming for the Isle of Wight Council. I have been assured they will look at this again and will do so in the very near future, ahead of the ongoing review of local government finance."

    Two key passages highlighted. The government have already looked at the funding settlement, not described by the MP as "fair". He is promised that if you vote for the boss, then we will "look again" "ahead of the review" - an out of process review of the decision made.

    His own words m'lud. Posted here on his website https://www.bobseely.org.uk/news/bob-seely-explains-his-vote-confidence-prime-minister.

    We then have a row in the commons where Nandy quotes Seely and suggests that if you do what we want we will consider giving your area money out of cycle sounds like corruption. "Outrageous" screams the MP. "“She completely misunderstands and she gets it completely wrong.” "“I said to the prime minister: will you commit to rectifying this wrong, which is a policy flaw, and he said yes – and I reminded him of that promise beforehand. So did I ask for a bag of cash? No".

    The problem is that the practical result of "rectifying this wrong" would be a "bag of cash". It reads like a very simple negotiation:
    If YOU: vote for the boss
    THEN WE: will "look at this [a fair funding package] again" "ahead of the review" - funding which in his own words would deliver a "big bag of cash".

    Now in the real world we know that is how politics works. But it IS corruption. Do x for cash y. And he posted it on his own website. Bit silly really.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,686
    Nigelb said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
    Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

    According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
    And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

    This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
    If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,939
    Foxy said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    Because they are not railway staff (and non-driver staff are paid a lot less).

    A large part of the Brexit vote came from Working Class voters wanting secure jobs with a living wage. That is what they want from "levelling up".

    The RMT is now fighting for those workers. The government is wanting the operating companies to contine to pay bonuses to management and dividends to foreign owners.
    Actually I think the issue is that strike action causes massive disruption and collateral damage to ordinary folk. Are you surprised with people being pushed off with those who they see as the proximate cause of the issue especially when - in most cases - the railway drivers will be better paid than those suffering the disruption
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 32,412
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

    The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

    The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
    Still peddling the evidence free dream.
    Me, or the Brexiteers, or both? 🤔
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,909

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    rein in, not reign. It's a horsey term. Think of the Queen riding a horse. Oh wait, that won't help.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,686

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    That is categorically untrue.

    I always said that it would be economically disruptive, but I think it will be worth it in the long run.

    The disruption though is up front, while the benefits are for the long term. Like a "hockey stick" chart.

    Sean made an analogy of it being painful "like childbirth".

    In fact the only people I've ever seen repeat a claim there'd be no pain, is Remainers talking to themselves about fictional windmill Leavers they're tilting at.
    Do you really think if this hockey stick view hadn't been suppressed the people would have voted for it? The lies and duplicity of some organisations never cease to amaze me. Even now they are blaming remainers for defeat when they told the truth about the economy.
    What do you mean suppressed? I've openly had the same view all along.

    They didn't tell the truth on the economy, the Remain campaign was a pack of economically illiterate lies. Where is the massive surge of unemployment that was predicted? Instead people are crying havoc that they can't find staff, where was that predicted?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,752

    Foxy said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    Because they are not railway staff (and non-driver staff are paid a lot less).

    A large part of the Brexit vote came from Working Class voters wanting secure jobs with a living wage. That is what they want from "levelling up".

    The RMT is now fighting for those workers. The government is wanting the operating companies to contine to pay bonuses to management and dividends to foreign owners.
    Actually I think the issue is that strike action causes massive disruption and collateral damage to ordinary folk. Are you surprised with people being pushed off with those who they see as the proximate cause of the issue especially when - in most cases - the railway drivers will be better paid than those suffering the disruption
    Again, it is not the drivers who are going on strike.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,752
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

    The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

    The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
    Still peddling the evidence free dream.
    Me, or the Brexiteers, or both? 🤔
    Sorry, I thought I was replying to Barty there. :smile:
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,939

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    The Farage line was that Belgians would continue selling chocolates, the Germans selling us cars and the French wine... God it was heard to drown out that snake oil salesman (Farage).......and as for that bloody bus, talk about a distraction.
    He was right - they are still selling those things. At a higher price. They on the other hand are buying less of our things because we're expensive and difficult for them to export to.

    A series of ONS stats out on Twitter showing just how badly both our economy and performance metrics like labour are tanking. The front page of The Times showing our performance is now worst in the G20 bar Russia.

    So we really have shit the bed here. And the tragedy is the government - aided and abetted by pliant lickspittles - keep denying this reality because the facts get in the way of their beliefs. So we can't do anything about it as the situation just gets worse.
    Its predicted performace for 2023, this year we are expected to grow the most of any G7 Country.

    Economic predictions are normally nonsense
    Sentence 1: an economic prediction
    Sentence 2: "economic predictions are nonsense"
    Impressive that you managed to misquote such a short comment
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,515

    Nigelb said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
    Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

    According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
    And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

    This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
    If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
    Also - legally - anyone can strike if they aren't happy with terms and conditions. Which they have.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 13,909

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    That is categorically untrue.

    I always said that it would be economically disruptive, but I think it will be worth it in the long run.

    The disruption though is up front, while the benefits are for the long term. Like a "hockey stick" chart.

    Sean made an analogy of it being painful "like childbirth".

    In fact the only people I've ever seen repeat a claim there'd be no pain, is Remainers talking to themselves about fictional windmill Leavers they're tilting at.
    Do you really think if this hockey stick view hadn't been suppressed the people would have voted for it? The lies and duplicity of some organisations never cease to amaze me. Even now they are blaming remainers for defeat when they told the truth about the economy.
    What do you mean suppressed? I've openly had the same view all along.

    They didn't tell the truth on the economy, the Remain campaign was a pack of economically illiterate lies. Where is the massive surge of unemployment that was predicted? Instead people are crying havoc that they can't find staff, where was that predicted?
    Lord Rose predicted that owing to staff shortages after Brexit, wages would have to rise.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,398
    Nigelb said:

    Chris Curtis has certainly blown the bloody doors off.

    Little known (until recently) Zahawi is coming into focus as another grade 1 Tory shit.
    I had my doubts about him ever since he supported Jenrick over his alleged corruption.



  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,135

    Foxy said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    Because they are not railway staff (and non-driver staff are paid a lot less).

    A large part of the Brexit vote came from Working Class voters wanting secure jobs with a living wage. That is what they want from "levelling up".

    The RMT is now fighting for those workers. The government is wanting the operating companies to contine to pay bonuses to management and dividends to foreign owners.
    Actually I think the issue is that strike action causes massive disruption and collateral damage to ordinary folk. Are you surprised with people being pushed off with those who they see as the proximate cause of the issue especially when - in most cases - the railway drivers will be better paid than those suffering the disruption
    As Foxy points out in the post to which you're replying, it's not the drivers who are striking but the low-paid staff.

    I think everyone inconvenienced by the strikes (including me) will feel it's a nuisance, but it's perfectly clear why they're doing it - if I was asked to accept a 3-year pay freeze, worsening conditions and possible impending redundancy , I'd consider it too. Wouldn't you? And the RMT aren't trying to run the country so there's no special reason why they should have to be subject to our approval.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,686

    Nigelb said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
    Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

    According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
    And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

    This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
    If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
    Also - legally - anyone can strike if they aren't happy with terms and conditions. Which they have.
    I know. I've just always felt that it should be equally legal for anyone who is striking to be fired and replaced by the employer, so long as everyone on strike is fired and not cherrypicked.

    Since the strikers want to withdraw their labour, that's their right, but the employer ought to be able to replace the withdrawn labour if they want to and are able to do so.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 39,752

    Nigelb said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
    Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

    According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
    And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

    This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
    If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
    Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

    The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
    At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

    Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
    This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,939

    Must say that I enjoyed the Corruptiongate row of yesterday.

    MP Bob Seely explains why he voted confidence in the PM:
    "I talked again with ministers about why a fair funding package has not yet been forthcoming for the Isle of Wight Council. I have been assured they will look at this again and will do so in the very near future, ahead of the ongoing review of local government finance."

    Two key passages highlighted. The government have already looked at the funding settlement, not described by the MP as "fair". He is promised that if you vote for the boss, then we will "look again" "ahead of the review" - an out of process review of the decision made.

    His own words m'lud. Posted here on his website https://www.bobseely.org.uk/news/bob-seely-explains-his-vote-confidence-prime-minister.

    We then have a row in the commons where Nandy quotes Seely and suggests that if you do what we want we will consider giving your area money out of cycle sounds like corruption. "Outrageous" screams the MP. "“She completely misunderstands and she gets it completely wrong.” "“I said to the prime minister: will you commit to rectifying this wrong, which is a policy flaw, and he said yes – and I reminded him of that promise beforehand. So did I ask for a bag of cash? No".

    The problem is that the practical result of "rectifying this wrong" would be a "bag of cash". It reads like a very simple negotiation:
    If YOU: vote for the boss
    THEN WE: will "look at this [a fair funding package] again" "ahead of the review" - funding which in his own words would deliver a "big bag of cash".

    Now in the real world we know that is how politics works. But it IS corruption. Do x for cash y. And he posted it on his own website. Bit silly really.

    It’s not corruption. It’s a representative fighting for his turf. He is trading something of value (a vote for Boris) which he judges is less important to the south islanders than a better government settlement

    Unedifying, yes. Never pleasant to watch sausages being made. But not corruption.

    It’s just the Seely seelying like they’ve done for the last 150 years
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 17,937
    Boris Johnson wanted a high wage economy. He delighted in rising wages.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,566
    Scott_xP said:

    Boris Johnson is killing the Scottish Tories, writes Magnus Linklater in Comment

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/772df7ea-e775-11ec-aa87-2eea7c6e5b01?shareToken=8710a22eb5ba6627c6dc8b7827a94a84

    Not completely crap then.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,939
    Nigelb said:

    Foxy said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    Because they are not railway staff (and non-driver staff are paid a lot less).

    A large part of the Brexit vote came from Working Class voters wanting secure jobs with a living wage. That is what they want from "levelling up".

    The RMT is now fighting for those workers. The government is wanting the operating companies to contine to pay bonuses to management and dividends to foreign owners.
    Actually I think the issue is that strike action causes massive disruption and collateral damage to ordinary folk. Are you surprised with people being pushed off with those who they see as the proximate cause of the issue especially when - in most cases - the railway drivers will be better paid than those suffering the disruption
    Again, it is not the drivers who are going on strike.
    That hasn’t cover across to the casual observer
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 4,686
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    The strike is not by the drivers - though no doubt that will come some way down the line...
    Much lower paid workers, who've had a pay freeze for the last couple of years.

    According the the management representative yesterday, they can't negotiate, since government has yet to tell them what are their funding constraints.
    And of course their revenue is down by a quarter compared to pre- pandemic.

    This one is very much down to government, who ought to have seen it coming. If they hadn't been so preoccupied with Big Dog's navel.
    If the staff don't want to provide their labour then that's their prerogative. Nobody is forced to work for an employer they don't want to work for, anyone can resign if they aren't happy with terms and conditions.
    Or they can strike, until the government decides to outlaw it. That is also their prerogative.

    The point you seem to have missed is that all if this might have been prevented, has management's hands not been tied.
    At the moment, they can't negotiate at all.

    Were you the one arguing a few days back that inflation didn't really matter ?
    This kind of mess is the inevitable consequence of high inflation. Groups with the power to cause disruption will use that to protect their real wages. Getting it under control is a long and painful process.
    Why are management's hands tied? They have income, they have expenditure, they need to balance the two. That's what they're bloody paid to do.

    If they can't balance the two, then the company should go bankrupt and close down and then everyone gets fired anyway.

    Management need to do their bloody jobs.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,515
    edited June 9

    Must say that I enjoyed the Corruptiongate row of yesterday.

    MP Bob Seely explains why he voted confidence in the PM:
    "I talked again with ministers about why a fair funding package has not yet been forthcoming for the Isle of Wight Council. I have been assured they will look at this again and will do so in the very near future, ahead of the ongoing review of local government finance."

    Two key passages highlighted. The government have already looked at the funding settlement, not described by the MP as "fair". He is promised that if you vote for the boss, then we will "look again" "ahead of the review" - an out of process review of the decision made.

    His own words m'lud. Posted here on his website https://www.bobseely.org.uk/news/bob-seely-explains-his-vote-confidence-prime-minister.

    We then have a row in the commons where Nandy quotes Seely and suggests that if you do what we want we will consider giving your area money out of cycle sounds like corruption. "Outrageous" screams the MP. "“She completely misunderstands and she gets it completely wrong.” "“I said to the prime minister: will you commit to rectifying this wrong, which is a policy flaw, and he said yes – and I reminded him of that promise beforehand. So did I ask for a bag of cash? No".

    The problem is that the practical result of "rectifying this wrong" would be a "bag of cash". It reads like a very simple negotiation:
    If YOU: vote for the boss
    THEN WE: will "look at this [a fair funding package] again" "ahead of the review" - funding which in his own words would deliver a "big bag of cash".

    Now in the real world we know that is how politics works. But it IS corruption. Do x for cash y. And he posted it on his own website. Bit silly really.

    It’s not corruption. It’s a representative fighting for his turf. He is trading something of value (a vote for Boris) which he judges is less important to the south islanders than a better government settlement

    Unedifying, yes. Never pleasant to watch sausages being made. But not corruption.

    It’s just the Seely seelying like they’ve done for the last 150 years
    Fighting for your turf? Absolutely fine. If you vote for the boss we may give your turf a bag of cash out of cycle that our review said it wasn't due? Corruption. What I'm not doing here is blaming Seely. He as you say is fighting for cash for his constituents. Its the *offer* that is corrupt. He has done us a public service in highlighting exactly how this government works.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,121
    edited June 9

    Must say that I enjoyed the Corruptiongate row of yesterday.

    MP Bob Seely explains why he voted confidence in the PM:
    "I talked again with ministers about why a fair funding package has not yet been forthcoming for the Isle of Wight Council. I have been assured they will look at this again and will do so in the very near future, ahead of the ongoing review of local government finance."

    Two key passages highlighted. The government have already looked at the funding settlement, not described by the MP as "fair". He is promised that if you vote for the boss, then we will "look again" "ahead of the review" - an out of process review of the decision made.

    His own words m'lud. Posted here on his website https://www.bobseely.org.uk/news/bob-seely-explains-his-vote-confidence-prime-minister.

    We then have a row in the commons where Nandy quotes Seely and suggests that if you do what we want we will consider giving your area money out of cycle sounds like corruption. "Outrageous" screams the MP. "“She completely misunderstands and she gets it completely wrong.” "“I said to the prime minister: will you commit to rectifying this wrong, which is a policy flaw, and he said yes – and I reminded him of that promise beforehand. So did I ask for a bag of cash? No".

    The problem is that the practical result of "rectifying this wrong" would be a "bag of cash". It reads like a very simple negotiation:
    If YOU: vote for the boss
    THEN WE: will "look at this [a fair funding package] again" "ahead of the review" - funding which in his own words would deliver a "big bag of cash".

    Now in the real world we know that is how politics works. But it IS corruption. Do x for cash y. And he posted it on his own website. Bit silly really.

    Yes, he was an idiot.

    Firstly, revealing that he's prepared to make a decision of national strategic importance on the basis of an entirely unrelated purely local matter.

    Secondly, by believing that a promise from the clown is of any value whatsoever.

    Thirdly by revealing himself a political prostitute prepared to do the wrong thing for the right inducement, placing a huge ? over his fitness for office and advancement.

    Fourthly by revealing the potential corruption behind the way our local councils are funded.

    And finally by inviting questions of other MPs as to what they got for their areas in return for their votes, and making his colleagues that got nothing look naive.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 39,128

    Good morning, everyone.

    If pro-EU voices had spent more time on the economic case (trade especially) for the EU rather than trying to claim a gross rather than net massive figure was unfair, they may well have won the referendum.

    Whatever the figure ( gross or net) it would have been claimed to be a Project Fear lie.

    PB Brexiteers with the exception of Richard Tyndall assured us there was no economic downside. Richard to be fair, accepted the economic loss to be worth the sovereignty gain. I disagreed but at least he was truthful. The rest of you claimed all gain and no pain.
    That is categorically untrue.

    I always said that it would be economically disruptive, but I think it will be worth it in the long run.

    The disruption though is up front, while the benefits are for the long term. Like a "hockey stick" chart.

    Sean made an analogy of it being painful "like childbirth".

    In fact the only people I've ever seen repeat a claim there'd be no pain, is Remainers talking to themselves about fictional windmill Leavers they're tilting at.
    Do you really think if this hockey stick view hadn't been suppressed the people would have voted for it? The lies and duplicity of some organisations never cease to amaze me. Even now they are blaming remainers for defeat when they told the truth about the economy.
    What do you mean suppressed? I've openly had the same view all along.

    They didn't tell the truth on the economy, the Remain campaign was a pack of economically illiterate lies. Where is the massive surge of unemployment that was predicted? Instead people are crying havoc that they can't find staff, where was that predicted?
    Lord Rose predicted that owing to staff shortages after Brexit, wages would have to rise.
    Lord Rose was right - which is why after one appearance he got locked away by the Remain campaign until after the vote.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,939

    Foxy said:

    Why are people getting uppity about train drivers not wanting a, god forbid, real terms pay cut?

    I got 5% and I am having to reign in almost all discretionary spending.

    Because they are not railway staff (and non-driver staff are paid a lot less).

    A large part of the Brexit vote came from Working Class voters wanting secure jobs with a living wage. That is what they want from "levelling up".

    The RMT is now fighting for those workers. The government is wanting the operating companies to contine to pay bonuses to management and dividends to foreign owners.
    Actually I think the issue is that strike action causes massive disruption and collateral damage to ordinary folk. Are you surprised with people being pushed off with those who they see as the proximate cause of the issue especially when - in most cases - the railway drivers will be better paid than those suffering the disruption
    As Foxy points out in the post to which you're replying, it's not the drivers who are striking but the low-paid staff.

    I think everyone inconvenienced by the strikes (including me) will feel it's a nuisance, but it's perfectly clear why they're doing it - if I was asked to accept a 3-year pay freeze, worsening conditions and possible impending redundancy , I'd consider it too. Wouldn't you? And the RMT aren't trying to run the country so there's no special reason why they should have to be subject to our approval.
    The question was why people are pissed off.That is because their lives are being disrupted by something they have no say in. And strikes on the railway & tube are a frequent occurrence.

    I’m not commenting on whether it’s justified or not. But there is a case to make that railways are critical infrastructure and so strikes should not be possible
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 18,515
    IanB2 said:

    Must say that I enjoyed the Corruptiongate row of yesterday.

    MP Bob Seely explains why he voted confidence in the PM:
    "I talked again with ministers about why a fair funding package has not yet been forthcoming for the Isle of Wight Council. I have been assured they will look at this again and will do so in the very near future, ahead of the ongoing review of local government finance."

    Two key passages highlighted. The government have already looked at the funding settlement, not described by the MP as "fair". He is promised that if you vote for the boss, then we will "look again" "ahead of the review" - an out of process review of the decision made.

    His own words m'lud. Posted here on his website https://www.bobseely.org.uk/news/bob-seely-explains-his-vote-confidence-prime-minister.

    We then have a row in the commons where Nandy quotes Seely and suggests that if you do what we want we will consider giving your area money out of cycle sounds like corruption. "Outrageous" screams the MP. "“She completely misunderstands and she gets it completely wrong.” "“I said to the prime minister: will you commit to rectifying this wrong, which is a policy flaw, and he said yes – and I reminded him of that promise beforehand. So did I ask for a bag of cash? No".

    The problem is that the practical result of "rectifying this wrong" would be a "bag of cash". It reads like a very simple negotiation:
    If YOU: vote for the boss
    THEN WE: will "look at this [a fair funding package] again" "ahead of the review" - funding which in his own words would deliver a "big bag of cash".

    Now in the real world we know that is how politics works. But it IS corruption. Do x for cash y. And he posted it on his own website. Bit silly really.

    Yes, he was an idiot.

    Firstly, revealing that he's prepared to make a decision of national strategic importance on the basis of an entirely unrelated purely local matter.

    Secondly, by believing that a promise from the clown is of any value whatsoever.

    Thirdly by revealing himself a political prostitute prepared to do the wrong thing for the right inducement, placing a huge ? over his fitness for office and advancement.

    Fourthly by revealing the potential corruption behind the way our local councils are funded.

    And finally by inviting questions of other MPs as to what they got for their areas in return for their votes, and making his colleagues that got nothing look naive.
    Thats the bit I don't get. A promise from Boris Johnson's government is a lie. So why take it at face value? Because deep down you consider the PM to be a man of his word? How naive is Bob Seely?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 33,566
    edited June 9

    Foxy said:

    Chris Curtis has certainly blown the bloody doors off.

    Could we have some detail on this allegation? I am not sure what is alleged. I appreciate OGH has to be careful with some issues for legal reasons.
    YouGov ‘banned’ release of 2017 leader debate poll because it was ‘too good for Labour’

    Ex-manager claims pollster was put under pressure by Tory MP founder

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-labour-yougov-2017-election-b2096555.html

    See this thread.

    https://twitter.com/chriscurtis94/status/1534444485907779584

    I mean this story was doing the rounds at the time.


    The ‘other’ Nad says it was all a joke between pals.
    Laugh a minute that guy.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 21,201
    “Germany will delay its delivery of long-range rocket systems to Ukraine because of course”


    https://twitter.com/apmassaro3/status/1534711492637081601?s=21&t=uEF2QR0hManiOGZ28FEbMQ


    Deutschland hinter alles
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,958
    Foxy said:

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

    The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

    The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
    That wouldn't have worked, and, in fact, would have depressed the Remain vote even further. Leave would have had an even bigger win.

    Most people don't feel an emotional attachment to the European project. What you describe is of passionate interest to perhaps 10-15% of the population, mainly internationalists in metropolitan areas, but they are highly unrepresentative of the broader electorate.

    Par for our European relationship has been, and remains, membership of a broader "common market" for trade, with a say in its technical rules, but respecting our traditions and sensitivities, a level of reciprocal free movement for work - but with clear limits to it and a brake if excessive - and absolutely no part in political, social, fiscal or economic union.

    Rejoiners have no better answers as they simply hope that Brexit will fail and vindicate them so we can go back "all in" but that won't be the basis of a sustainable settlement - it will just trade one set of problems for another.

    Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 28,232

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

    The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

    The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
    However long it takes, I think it's Britain destiny to remain half-European and half-Atlantic in some form, economically and culturally. The current government attempts to defy economic and cultural gravity, and a millennium of history, with nonsense about being a Pacific country for trade, and having little connection with Europe for cultural exchange, and by comparison this very recent project will never hold.
    Excellent post. To suggest that we can cooperate fully with the Pacific countries but not with the ones nearest to us is insane.

    And good morning everyone; nice and bright and sunny here today.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,135

    ics works. But it IS corruption. Do x for cash y. And he posted it on his own website. Bit silly really.

    It’s not corruption. It’s a representative fighting for his turf. He is trading something of value (a vote for Boris) which he judges is less important to the south islanders than a better government settlement

    Unedifying, yes. Never pleasant to watch sausages being made. But not corruption.

    It’s just the Seely seelying like they’ve done for the last 150 years
    Fighting for your turf? Absolutely fine. If you vote for the boss we may give your turf a bag of cash out of cycle that our review said it wasn't due? Corruption. What I'm not doing here is blaming Seely. He as you say is fighting for cash for his constituents. Its the *offer* that is corrupt. He has done us a public service in highlighting exactly how this government works.

    I agree with StillWaters here (a rare event). I think most people would define "corruption" as receiving money personally in return for political actions. To be fair, Bob Seely hasn't done that. If we accuse people of nasty things that they haven't done, we undermine outrage at the real crimes (which corruption is). He's made an unedifying deal, no more and no less.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 40,121

    IanB2 said:

    Must say that I enjoyed the Corruptiongate row of yesterday.

    MP Bob Seely explains why he voted confidence in the PM:
    "I talked again with ministers about why a fair funding package has not yet been forthcoming for the Isle of Wight Council. I have been assured they will look at this again and will do so in the very near future, ahead of the ongoing review of local government finance."

    Two key passages highlighted. The government have already looked at the funding settlement, not described by the MP as "fair". He is promised that if you vote for the boss, then we will "look again" "ahead of the review" - an out of process review of the decision made.

    His own words m'lud. Posted here on his website https://www.bobseely.org.uk/news/bob-seely-explains-his-vote-confidence-prime-minister.

    We then have a row in the commons where Nandy quotes Seely and suggests that if you do what we want we will consider giving your area money out of cycle sounds like corruption. "Outrageous" screams the MP. "“She completely misunderstands and she gets it completely wrong.” "“I said to the prime minister: will you commit to rectifying this wrong, which is a policy flaw, and he said yes – and I reminded him of that promise beforehand. So did I ask for a bag of cash? No".

    The problem is that the practical result of "rectifying this wrong" would be a "bag of cash". It reads like a very simple negotiation:
    If YOU: vote for the boss
    THEN WE: will "look at this [a fair funding package] again" "ahead of the review" - funding which in his own words would deliver a "big bag of cash".

    Now in the real world we know that is how politics works. But it IS corruption. Do x for cash y. And he posted it on his own website. Bit silly really.

    Yes, he was an idiot.

    Firstly, revealing that he's prepared to make a decision of national strategic importance on the basis of an entirely unrelated purely local matter.

    Secondly, by believing that a promise from the clown is of any value whatsoever.

    Thirdly by revealing himself a political prostitute prepared to do the wrong thing for the right inducement, placing a huge ? over his fitness for office and advancement.

    Fourthly by revealing the potential corruption behind the way our local councils are funded.

    And finally by inviting questions of other MPs as to what they got for their areas in return for their votes, and making his colleagues that got nothing look naive.
    Thats the bit I don't get. A promise from Boris Johnson's government is a lie. So why take it at face value? Because deep down you consider the PM to be a man of his word? How naive is Bob Seely?
    And he's been waiting three years already. Johnson is on his way out and, ooops, it'll never get done.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 1,939

    Must say that I enjoyed the Corruptiongate row of yesterday.

    MP Bob Seely explains why he voted confidence in the PM:
    "I talked again with ministers about why a fair funding package has not yet been forthcoming for the Isle of Wight Council. I have been assured they will look at this again and will do so in the very near future, ahead of the ongoing review of local government finance."

    Two key passages highlighted. The government have already looked at the funding settlement, not described by the MP as "fair". He is promised that if you vote for the boss, then we will "look again" "ahead of the review" - an out of process review of the decision made.

    His own words m'lud. Posted here on his website https://www.bobseely.org.uk/news/bob-seely-explains-his-vote-confidence-prime-minister.

    We then have a row in the commons where Nandy quotes Seely and suggests that if you do what we want we will consider giving your area money out of cycle sounds like corruption. "Outrageous" screams the MP. "“She completely misunderstands and she gets it completely wrong.” "“I said to the prime minister: will you commit to rectifying this wrong, which is a policy flaw, and he said yes – and I reminded him of that promise beforehand. So did I ask for a bag of cash? No".

    The problem is that the practical result of "rectifying this wrong" would be a "bag of cash". It reads like a very simple negotiation:
    If YOU: vote for the boss
    THEN WE: will "look at this [a fair funding package] again" "ahead of the review" - funding which in his own words would deliver a "big bag of cash".

    Now in the real world we know that is how politics works. But it IS corruption. Do x for cash y. And he posted it on his own website. Bit silly really.

    It’s not corruption. It’s a representative fighting for his turf. He is trading something of value (a vote for Boris) which he judges is less important to the south islanders than a better government settlement

    Unedifying, yes. Never pleasant to watch sausages being made. But not corruption.

    It’s just the Seely seelying like they’ve done for the last 150 years
    Fighting for your turf? Absolutely fine. If you vote for the boss we may give your turf a bag of cash out of cycle that our review said it wasn't due? Corruption. What I'm not doing here is blaming Seely. He as you say is fighting for cash for his constituents. Its the *offer* that is corrupt. He has done us a public service in highlighting exactly how this government works.
    There’s not been an offer of cash. It’s just a political promise to review. Of course if the government breaks their promise then there will be political consequences.

    But this won’t be “add £xm to the Isle of Wight” it will be “due to staff shortages we need to preserve transport links. Therefore we are giving an extra £xm to be shared out between all English islands with a population of >50,000 and less than 200,000”
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 22,258

    Both sides need to get real and that includes EU fanatics who shout "unicorns" or "cherrypicking" at anything that looks like a flexed model.

    Brexit is a binary choice.

    We are in, or out.

    There is no flex. That is a unicorn.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 42,903
    One of the attractions of getting older (and there are not many) is that you forget the details of certain things like how unbelievably shite Theresa May's campaign was in 2017. This story, AIUI, is that in the immediate aftermath of a significant piece of stupidity and cowardice a poll indicated that the Tories had lost a lot of support. It was wrong that it was suppressed but it would have been equally absurd to suggest that it indicated the likely outcome of the election.

    Amber Rudd, of course, finished that Parliament as the independent member for Hastings and Rye, a seat she had held onto by the skin of her teeth in 2017. She wisely did not even stand in 2019. An interesting choice for a substitute, you might think.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 44,958

    Foxy said:

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

    The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

    The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
    However long it takes, I think it's Britain destiny to remain half-European and half-Atlantic in some form, economically and culturally. The current government attempts to defy economic and cultural gravity, and a millennium of history, with nonsense about being a Pacific country for trade, and having little connection with Europe for cultural exchange, and by comparison this very recent project will never hold.
    The clue there is half-Atlantic and half-European.

    A one-size-fits-all EU model was never going to work for Britain and that's what they insisted on providing through the Lisbon Treaty (yes, I know Maastricht opt-out on the euro - not enough) and wanted to take it even further through further social, fiscal and political union in future.

    Have they learned any lessons? Would they be willing to flex?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 21,201
    In a car in the lower Caucasus. Just passed a road sign saying

    “Istanbul 1,715 km”

    Useful

    A bit like driving around Kent and seeing a sign for Madrid
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 5,596
    Foxy said:

    Mr. Boy, the other side got a hearing in accordance with the law in this country providing equal amounts of coverage.

    The obvious, and right, response to the infamous bus was to highlight the trade benefits, and then lead into broader economic pros. The strange, and chosen, response was to argue a massive figure was illegitimate because it was net, which put two cost figures (both enormous) into the public's mind without the other side of the scales (economic advantages).

    You obviously remember the campaign differently from me. The Remain side said a lot about the economic downsides. Leave said it was all "project fear" and told us that we would be flooded by Turks. Leave won.
    The bus has become part of the mythology on both sides, but was less central than many remember.
    Anyway, the important thing is not how we got into this mess but how we get out of it.
    Both campaigns were pisspoor, and there was no real canvassing or street level campaigning, but rather just media stunts.

    The economic case for Remain was made, and dismissed by the electorate, but what the Remain campaign failed on was engaging people emotionally with the European project. In part this was because the whole campaign was controlled by different Tory factions and the other parties sidelined, Corbyn being notably uninterested in the issue. The Tory campaign was an internal battle between emotional Brexiteers and transactional Remainers.

    The massive groundswell of emotional bonds to a European identity only came after the vote, in the million strong marches. It needed to be a a year or two earlier, but that emotional attachment to Europe for many of us is still present, which why the issue will resurface at some point, and will not go away.
    It can't go away until all parties see that geography, politics and history form the present and its problems. Particular situations require particular solutions (as with Switzerland).

    Secondly, and here there is an exact parallel with the SNP (everyone is in denial about this inconvenient truth), Brexit is two quite separate questions.

    The first is: What shall be out constitutional foundations (which Ref2016 decided).

    The second is: How well shall the UK be run politically and economically. What direction, how competent.

    Any Scot, post future independence, may well say 'Glad we are an independent sovereign state, and BTW our current government is rubbish'.

    That's where we are with Brexit. Many would say: 'Glad we did it. BTW our government is rubbish. Time for a change'.





This discussion has been closed.