So what's Labour's answer? They already seem to have decided it, unofficially - a caretaker for three years to sort out some of the damage done by Miliband's disorganization and complacency, then find a proper candidate when they know who the next PM will be.
Betting opportunities - Dan Jarvis still looks worth a shot to be Labour leader before the next election. The other to keep an eye on in case Labour go for a Howard-style coronation under this scenario might still be Jon Cruddas.
Isn't the caretaker leader set-up a ruse to smooth the path for David Miliband?
It gives him time to finish his contract in New York, re-enter the Commons without undue haste and perhaps even do a loyal stint in the Shadow Cabinet before being prevailed upon to take over the leadership "for the good of the Party".
Whether it could ever pan out as smoothly as his supporters would hope is open to question, but it's the only reason that makes sense to me for electing an interim leader now, rather than simply choosing their best candidate for 2020 straight away.
None of the current candidates is old enough to be a caretaker, being all aged in their early 40's. The only viable option for a caretaker would be for HH to stand, but if so then she needs to do so this week.
I cannot see it myself, and a return of David Miliband is soap opera rather than a realistic possibility.
If Volker Trier was in the pay of Nigel Farage, he couldn't have come up with a more useful interview for Better off Out. What sort of idiot says that (1) a foreign country should not listen to its people and (2) that if it asks for something it should be ignored?
He's in denial. From his point of view, it will set an even more dangerous precedent for the EU if the UK votes to leave because of its obstinacy.
It also explains why he works for their equivalent of the CBI rather than actually in business.
A blanket refusal to negotiate terms with a partner who wants to amend a contractual relationship is a very very high risk strategy.
If Volker Trier was in the pay of Nigel Farage, he couldn't have come up with a more useful interview for Better off Out. What sort of idiot says that (1) a foreign country should not listen to its people and (2) that if it asks for something it should be ignored?
He's in denial. From his point of view, it will set an even more dangerous precedent for the EU if the UK votes to leave because of its obstinacy.
It also explains why he works for their equivalent of the CBI rather than actually in business.
A blanket refusal to negotiate terms with a partner who wants to amend a contractual relationship is a very very high risk strategy.
I would have thought treating a business partner with that level of disrespect, especially publicly, is not so much 'high risk' as 'stone certainty'. I wouldn't deal with anyone who thought my views and wishes were irrelevant, or who seemed incapable of imagining that I have the right to different views from him.
Fortunately, Angela Merkel is not likely to be so foolish as to reject such ideas out of hand. But it does rather sum up the difficulty Britain and the EU have relating to each other - Europe simply doesn't get that by virtue of being an island, we have had a different pattern of development and therefore a different outlook from them. As a result, they seem to often resort to childish abuse more appropriate to a jilted boyfriend than reasoned discussion between equal partners.
Yeah right. And British Europhobes never reject European ideas out of hand, and are the embodiment of sweet reason! The Daily Express for instance...
Small problem - of the four candidates so far declared, not one of them is capable of [appealing to Midlands and North]. Mary Creagh is an idiot. Yvette Cooper is patronising. Andrew Burnham is tainted (and not exactly inspiring even if he wasn't). Liz Kendall would be the closest thing Labour have to such a figure, but I simply don't think she carries the intellectual guns to face whichever leader the Tories select to replace Cameron.
People betting on the Labour leadership race need to avoid thinking like Tories, as this does. I'm non-committal on the leadership, but you'd struggle to find Labour members who agreed with any of these assessments - they don't even get the weaknesses right. Creagh is intelligent and steady, but simply little-known even to members. Cooper is the easiest to imagine in Number 10, but stiff on TV: she can be funny and flexible in private, but needs to show it. Burnham isn't seen as tainted (presumably this refers to Stafford) - people who know about Stafford recognise that he wasn't responsible. His big plus is his willingness to think outside the box (e.g. his proposal to cut NHS spending in order to build up the care service to keep people out of hospital), and he's certainly the strongest "not just London" candidate, but he's too diffident and emotional to be an obvious PM - the opposite of Cooper's problem. Kendall is interestingly iconoclastic, but I've yet to hear her positive arguments (for the Midlands or anywhere else).
Kendall's chances are the hardest to read. She needs to answer the "What am I for?" question before the media get round to the usual roller-coaster treatment - they build people up and then savage them when they make a slip. Members are up for a "new generation" candidate, and even many members on the left aren't yet terminally anti-Kendall, but I think her price is now too short. Like Henry I'd think Cooper ought to be narrow favourite, though Burnham has a lot of affection in the membership. It won't be Creagh - just not sufficiently known.
By the way, comments here (and in a slightly more veiled way in the British media more widely) not only assume that the FIFA officials are guilty but also that Blatter, who hasn't been charged with anything so far, is guilty too. I've not been fiollowing it (and I couldn't care less where the World Cup is held) but shouldn't we hesitate to prejudge any trials?
If Volker Trier was in the pay of Nigel Farage, he couldn't have come up with a more useful interview for Better off Out. What sort of idiot says that (1) a foreign country should not listen to its people and (2) that if it asks for something it should be ignored?
He's in denial. From his point of view, it will set an even more dangerous precedent for the EU if the UK votes to leave because of its obstinacy.
He said that Britain leaving would be bad for both Britain and Germany and may adversely impact on the 400 000 jobs in the UK with German employers. It seems a reasonable view to me:
That's a highly selective quotation of what he said. He also expresses astonishment that the UK is even allowing a vote and does not want the EU to compromise one inch with the electorate to convince them to stay.
Yeah right. And British Europhobes never reject European ideas out of hand, and are the embodiment of sweet reason! The Daily Express for instance...
True Foxinsoxuk. But they don't want to be popular in Europe, or care about the EU. For somebody who is clearly anxious for Britain to remain in the EU for what seem to me very good reasons to wrap that up in such words, even if he has been misquoted, is to say the least unwise. Many interviews like that will merely go to confirm what the Europhobes are saying in the minds of the population, and tip the scales towards out unless Merkel agrees drastic reforms - both of which Treier has said he does not want!
If Volker Trier was in the pay of Nigel Farage, he couldn't have come up with a more useful interview for Better off Out. What sort of idiot says that (1) a foreign country should not listen to its people and (2) that if it asks for something it should be ignored?
He's in denial. From his point of view, it will set an even more dangerous precedent for the EU if the UK votes to leave because of its obstinacy.
Isn't his position rather analogous* to that of a British Unionist in relation to the SNP?
If, in his mind, the EU is already a United State then it makes his position perfectly explicable. After all, many people on here have complained of the special deals desired by the United Kingdom's less quiescent regions. If the out campaign can present a vote for IN as a vote for European statehood in line with this chap's apparent assumptions then they would win the referendum at a canter.
* If we leave aside the differences created by 300 years of Union in one case and 40 years of a quasi-Union in the other.
He said that Britain leaving would be bad for both Britain and Germany and may adversely impact on the 400 000 jobs in the UK with German employers. It seems a reasonable view to me:
And he may be right - so why is he saying that Germany should refuse to negotiate to keep Britain in the EU? It's not logical. It's not even sensible. As for the suggestion that asking the people their views is 'astonishing...'
Perfectly acceptable if they think Britain as usual is being unreasonable. Why should they negotiate if they do not want changes made.
By the way, comments here (and in a slightly more veiled way in the British media more widely) not only assume that the FIFA officials are guilty but also that Blatter, who hasn't been charged with anything so far, is guilty too. I've not been fiollowing it (and I couldn't care less where the World Cup is held) but shouldn't we hesitate to prejudge any trials?
And in particular, don't be too quick to believe what you read in US inditements. They're not written with the goal of being fair to the suspect, to put it mildly.
Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said that the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is "very risky" and "quite dangerous". He said that Britain had "joined a football club" and cannot decide "in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby".
If Volker Trier was in the pay of Nigel Farage, he couldn't have come up with a more useful interview for Better off Out. What sort of idiot says that (1) a foreign country should not listen to its people and (2) that if it asks for something it should be ignored?
He's in denial. From his point of view, it will set an even more dangerous precedent for the EU if the UK votes to leave because of its obstinacy.
It also explains why he works for their equivalent of the CBI rather than actually in business.
A blanket refusal to negotiate terms with a partner who wants to amend a contractual relationship is a very very high risk strategy.
Yeah right. And British Europhobes never reject European ideas out of hand, and are the embodiment of sweet reason! The Daily Express for instance...
True Foxinsoxuk. But they don't want to be popular in Europe, or care about the EU. For somebody who is clearly anxious for Britain to remain in the EU for what seem to me very good reasons to wrap that up in such words, even if he has been misquoted, is to say the least unwise. Many interviews like that will merely go to confirm what the Europhobes are saying in the minds of the population, and tip the scales towards out unless Merkel agrees drastic reforms - both of which Treier has said he does not want!
It's rather like Labour activists in the 80s saying that on no account must they compromise with the voters.
it's the only reason that makes sense to me for electing an interim leader now, rather than simply choosing their best candidate for 2020 straight away.
Their 'best candidate for 2020' is almost certainly not standing in the current contest
So what's Labour's answer? They already seem to have decided it, unofficially - a caretaker for three years to sort out some of the damage done by Miliband's disorganization and complacency, then find a proper candidate when they know who the next PM will be.
Betting opportunities - Dan Jarvis still looks worth a shot to be Labour leader before the next election. The other to keep an eye on in case Labour go for a Howard-style coronation under this scenario might still be Jon Cruddas.
Isn't the caretaker leader set-up a ruse to smooth the path for David Miliband?
It gives him time to finish his contract in New York, re-enter the Commons without undue haste and perhaps even do a loyal stint in the Shadow Cabinet before being prevailed upon to take over the leadership "for the good of the Party".
Whether it could ever pan out as smoothly as his supporters would hope is open to question, but it's the only reason that makes sense to me for electing an interim leader now, rather than simply choosing their best candidate for 2020 straight away.
None of the current candidates is old enough to be a caretaker, being all aged in their early 40's. The only viable option for a caretaker would be for HH to stand, but if so then she needs to do so this week.
I cannot see it myself, and a return of David Miliband is soap opera rather than a realistic possibility.
I think it is a mistake to rule out the return of David M. He's certainly careful to avoid ruling it out, has a break clause in his contract, and is clearly still following UK situation (indeed, I think he might even be here doing a talk this weekend).
A lot can happen in five years.
It's certainly a never say never scenario, rather than "a soap opera".
Small problem - of the four candidates so far declared, not one of them is capable of [appealing to Midlands and North]. Mary Creagh is an idiot. Yvette Cooper is patronising. Andrew Burnham is tainted (and not exactly inspiring even if he wasn't). Liz Kendall would be the closest thing Labour have to such a figure, but I simply don't think she carries the intellectual guns to face whichever leader the Tories select to replace Cameron.
People betting on the Labour leadership race need to avoid thinking like Tories, as this does. I'm non-committal on the leadership, but you'd struggle to find Labour members who agreed with any of these assessments - they don't even get the weaknesses right. Creagh is intelligent and steady, but simply little-known even to members. Cooper is the easiest to imagine in Number 10, but stiff on TV: she can be funny and flexible in private, but needs to show it. Burnham isn't seen as tainted (presumably this refers to Stafford) - people who know about Stafford recognise that he wasn't responsible. His big plus is his willingness to think outside the box (e.g. his proposal to cut NHS spending in order to build up the care service to keep people out of hospital), and he's certainly the strongest "not just London" candidate, but he's too diffident and emotional to be an obvious PM - the opposite of Cooper's problem. Kendall is interestingly iconoclastic, but I've yet to hear her positive arguments (for the Midlands or anywhere else).
Kendall's chances are the hardest to read. She needs to answer the "What am I for?" question before the media get round to the usual roller-coaster treatment - they build people up and then savage them when they make a slip. Members are up for a "new generation" candidate, and even many members on the left aren't yet terminally anti-Kendall, but I think her price is now too short. Like Henry I'd think Cooper ought to be narrow favourite, though Burnham has a lot of affection in the membership. It won't be Creagh - just not sufficiently known.
By the way, comments here (and in a slightly more veiled way in the British media more widely) not only assume that the FIFA officials are guilty but also that Blatter, who hasn't been charged with anything so far, is guilty too. I've not been fiollowing it (and I couldn't care less where the World Cup is held) but shouldn't we hesitate to prejudge any trials?
Nick, there has already been a series of guilty pleas and fines into nine figures. Whilst I agree it would be prudent to say that Blatter hasn't yet been charged with anything, he was the figure-head of a regime that the guilty pleas show was monstrously corrupt. About the only defence he has going for him is he was a blind, disconnected fool. I wouldn't want to be the one running that as his defence against any subsequent charges....
He said that Britain leaving would be bad for both Britain and Germany and may adversely impact on the 400 000 jobs in the UK with German employers. It seems a reasonable view to me:
And he may be right - so why is he saying that Germany should refuse to negotiate to keep Britain in the EU? It's not logical. It's not even sensible. As for the suggestion that asking the people their views is 'astonishing...'
Perfectly acceptable if they think Britain as usual is being unreasonable. Why should they negotiate if they do not want changes made.
I guess what they want to stamp on is the idea that when voters in one country vote for someone who promises the rest of the EU will give them something, that person has a mandate to make other EU governments give them that something. If they let that one fly everyone's naturally going to start voting for someone who promises to make Germany pay for all their stuff.
I'm non-committal on the leadership, but you'd struggle to find Labour members who agreed with any of these assessments - they don't even get the weaknesses right. Creagh is intelligent and steady, but simply little-known even to members. Cooper is the easiest to imagine in Number 10, but stiff on TV: she can be funny and flexible in private, but needs to show it. Burnham isn't seen as tainted (presumably this refers to Stafford) - people who know about Stafford recognise that he wasn't responsible. His big plus is his willingness to think outside the box (e.g. his proposal to cut NHS spending in order to build up the care service to keep people out of hospital), and he's certainly the strongest "not just London" candidate, but he's too diffident and emotional to be an obvious PM - the opposite of Cooper's problem. Kendall is interestingly iconoclastic, but I've yet to hear her positive arguments (for the Midlands or anywhere else).
Thank you for the reply, but I have to disagree with your criticisms:
Creagh believes, in the face of all scientific evidence, that TB is passed solely from cattle to cattle and not from badgers to cattle (or says she does to appease the pro-badger lobby, which in a way would be an even worse error). She also believes that vaccinating badgers would solve the problem of TB among them (again, not true and even five minutes' thought would show someone with a brain why it wouldn't help the cubs of infected badgers, who stay underground for the first fortnight of their lives). Her tenure as Shadow DEFRA minister was notable for her complete refutation of an evidence-based farming policy painfully formulated over many years and her bitter attacks on the farming industry. I'd say she qualifies as an idiot. If Labour cannot see that because of her personal charm, that's their problem.
Cooper - I wouldn't know enough to comment, but if she's stiff on TV that's a serious drawback. Certainly she comes across as rude and patronising - like Thatcher but without Thatcher's force of character or strength of purpose.
'Burnham isn't seen as tainted (presumably this refers to Stafford) - people who know about Stafford recognise that he wasn't responsible'
He was and is regarded as responsible for the coverup. He is still blamed for it, particularly round here, due to mistakes made in his earlier tenure as Minister of State surrounding the awarding of foundation trust status, and is also still mentioned in several ongoing legal actions surrounding criminal negligence at Stafford Hospital. Again, if Labour think merely because other people were involved somehow Burnham can dodge that bullet, they're kidding themselves. If he's also 'diffident and emotional' (which implies indecision, a la Brown) that makes him even less attractive.
Good grief, how ominous that post looks for Labour. Liz Kendall the only one not showing massive flaws...
Whilst I agree it would be prudent to say that Blatter hasn't yet been charged with anything, he was the figure-head of a regime that the guilty pleas show was monstrously corrupt. About the only defence he has going for him is he was a blind, disconnected fool. I wouldn't want to be the one running that as his defence against any subsequent charges....
Before Labour selects a leader it has to decide what it's strategy should be. They lost the election because the young were too bored to vote and the old too scared of the SNP into voting Tory in droves.
Labour needs a leader that knows how to get rid of the SNP or at least ban the SNP from coalitions or propping governments for ransom. If the SNP is removed as a threat either electorally or by law then the old will not be so scared into voting Tory the next time.
Basically the SNP is a type of militant tendency that needs to be confronted and thrown out.
Either you think that the SNP are part of the Labour Party, and I don't know if that would surprise Nicola Sturgeon or Jim Murphy more.
Or you think that 56 out of 59 of Scotland's democratically elected MPs should be removed from any vote at all in the UK Parliament.
You do realise what you seem to be saying, I hope?
Small problem - of the four candidates so far declared, not one of them is capable of [appealing to Midlands and North]. Mary Creagh is an idiot. Yvette Cooper is patronising. Andrew Burnham is tainted (and not exactly inspiring even if he wasn't). Liz Kendall would be the closest thing Labour have to such a figure, but I simply don't think she carries the intellectual guns to face whichever leader the Tories select to replace Cameron.
By the way, comments here (and in a slightly more veiled way in the British medi more widely) not only assume that the FIFA officials are guilty but also that Blatter, who hasn't been charged with anything so far, is guilty too. I've not been fiollowing it (and I couldn't care less where the World Cup is held) but shouldn't we hesitate to prejudge any trials?
There is very little doubt Fifa is a despicable and corrupt organisation (this has far more to do with its entire operations than just where world cups are held). As its head and driving force blatter would therefore have to grossly incompetent to the point of negligence, or in on it, given his position and how long he has been in it. But of course you are right not all of the official may be found guilty (those that haven't already pleaded guilty), there is always a possibility an that fifa is just unfortunate in appearing so shady, the equivalent of a weird looking person being hounded by the media regarding a crime,
But with this many bad apples, I don't think it unfair in the slightest to presume the next batch of apples from the orchard will be bad as well.
He said that Britain leaving would be bad for both Britain and Germany and may adversely impact on the 400 000 jobs in the UK with German employers. It seems a reasonable view to me:
And he may be right - so why is he saying that Germany should refuse to negotiate to keep Britain in the EU? It's not logical. It's not even sensible. As for the suggestion that asking the people their views is 'astonishing...'
Perfectly acceptable if they think Britain as usual is being unreasonable. Why should they negotiate if they do not want changes made.
He said that Britain leaving would be bad for both Britain and Germany and may adversely impact on the 400 000 jobs in the UK with German employers. It seems a reasonable view to me:
And he may be right - so why is he saying that Germany should refuse to negotiate to keep Britain in the EU? It's not logical. It's not even sensible. As for the suggestion that asking the people their views is 'astonishing...'
Perfectly acceptable if they think Britain as usual is being unreasonable. Why should they negotiate if they do not want changes made.
I guess what they want to stamp on is the idea that when voters in one country vote for someone who promises the rest of the EU will give them something, that person has a mandate to make other EU governments give them that something. If they let that one fly everyone's naturally going to start voting for someone who promises to make Germany pay for all their stuff.
The irony of course is that if Britain wants a looser relationship with the EU it makes it less likely they will ask Germany to pay for stuff.
@malcolmg - refusing to negotiate on the grounds that someone is 'unreasonable' is hardly a clever strategy. Better to negotiate first and then later say they were unreasonable. Or to put it another way, supposing Mark Carney turned around and said he was 'astonished' that Scotland was being offered more devolution to keep it in the UK merely because the SNP had done well in the election - wouldn't you be annoyed with him and tell him to mind his own damn business?
Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said that the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is "very risky" and "quite dangerous". He said that Britain had "joined a football club" and cannot decide "in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby".
ridiculous comparison - the club as joined is far different now to that joined. Even if one accepts it was always supposed to end up this way, that doesn't make it a bad idea to see if things can be changed a little, and if not, then membersip of thec club resigned. He's saying renegotation is bad, not the referendum then - either put up or shut up, and that's what the vote will do, so by his own terms its a good thing.
Whilst I agree it would be prudent to say that Blatter hasn't yet been charged with anything, he was the figure-head of a regime that the guilty pleas show was monstrously corrupt. About the only defence he has going for him is he was a blind, disconnected fool. I wouldn't want to be the one running that as his defence against any subsequent charges....
David Cameron is fulfilling his promise to transfer a swathe of new powers to Holyrood, Scotland’s lawyers have said despite claims by SNP ministers the plans fell “well short” of what was agreed after the independence referendum.
Small problem - of the four candidates so far declared, not one of them is capable of [appealing to Midlands and North].
By the way, comments here (and in a slightly more veiled way in the British medi more widely) not only assume that the FIFA officials are guilty but also that Blatter, who hasn't been charged with anything so far, is guilty too. I've not been fiollowing it (and I couldn't care less where the World Cup is held) but shouldn't we hesitate to prejudge any trials?
There is very little doubt Fifa is a despicable and corrupt organisation (this has far more to do with its entire operations than just where world cups are held). As its head and driving force blatter would therefore have to grossly incompetent to the point of negligence, or in on it, given his position and how long he has been in it. But of course you are right not all of the official may be found guilty (those that haven't already pleaded guilty), there is always a possibility an that fifa is just unfortunate in appearing so shady, the equivalent of a weird looking person being hounded by the media regarding a crime,
But with this many bad apples, I don't think it unfair in the slightest to presume the next batch of apples from the orchard will be bad as well.
It's amazing how many rotten apples in so many rotten barrels Putin supports.
"Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said that the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is "very risky" and "quite dangerous". He said that Britain had "joined a football club" and cannot decide "in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby".
Most people who voted in 1975 thought we were joining a football club. Now we are being told that it was indeed a football club - a rugby football club. Didn't you check the small print?
Whilst I agree it would be prudent to say that Blatter hasn't yet been charged with anything, he was the figure-head of a regime that the guilty pleas show was monstrously corrupt. About the only defence he has going for him is he was a blind, disconnected fool. I wouldn't want to be the one running that as his defence against any subsequent charges....
If Volker Trier was in the pay of Nigel Farage, he couldn't have come up with a more useful interview for Better off Out. What sort of idiot says that (1) a foreign country should not listen to its people and (2) that if it asks for something it should be ignored?
He's in denial. From his point of view, it will set an even more dangerous precedent for the EU if the UK votes to leave because of its obstinacy.
It also explains why he works for their equivalent of the CBI rather than actually in business.
A blanket refusal to negotiate terms with a partner who wants to amend a contractual relationship is a very very high risk strategy.
But it does rather sum up the difficulty Britain and the EU have relating to each other - Europe simply doesn't get that by virtue of being an island, we have had a different pattern of development and therefore a different outlook from them. As a result, they seem to often resort to childish abuse more appropriate to a jilted boyfriend than reasoned discussion between equal partners.
And they say that irony does not work on the internet.
looking at the map you can see the extent geographically of Labours problems - outside London, the Welsh Valleys and Urban North Labour have a real problem. They seem to struggle to be a national party.
The spending deficit was too high in the years before the 2008 financial crash, Andy Burnham will say today. In a major speech this morning, the leadership candidate will say that Labour must make this admission in order to regain trust on the economy:
“If we are to win back trust we have to start by admitting that we should not have been running a significant deficit in the years before the crash.”
In many business organisations, it is quite common for the annual fees to be proportional in some way to the company's turnover - yet they may have only one vote, as does the smallest member.
If you are a shareholder in a company, then your votes are proportional to the number of shares held.
If this principle was applied to FIFA then Blatter may well not get re-elected. Should this principle nor also apply to the EU?
If would appear - like the Labour party - Blatter has arranged things and so gets his support from those who are fiscally dependent on FIFA's largesse.
He said that Britain leaving would be bad for both Britain and Germany and may adversely impact on the 400 000 jobs in the UK with German employers. It seems a reasonable view to me:
And he may be right - so why is he saying that Germany should refuse to negotiate to keep Britain in the EU? It's not logical. It's not even sensible. As for the suggestion that asking the people their views is 'astonishing...'
Perfectly acceptable if they think Britain as usual is being unreasonable. Why should they negotiate if they do not want changes made.
I guess what they want to stamp on is the idea that when voters in one country vote for someone who promises the rest of the EU will give them something, that person has a mandate to make other EU governments give them that something. If they let that one fly everyone's naturally going to start voting for someone who promises to make Germany pay for all their stuff.
Leaving aside Malcolm and his massive own goal, the big difference is the eurozone, it's problems and the inevitable ever closer union of its members. We need negotiate our relationship with that, and it ought to be plain and simple to anybody. Add to this the problems of free movement of labour and benefits. All this Cameron has explained and emphasised, going way back. We are not in the euro and do not want this ever closer union. The reasons for negotiation are clear.
Small problem - of the four candidates so far declared, not one of them is capable of [appealing to Midlands and North].
By the way, comments here (and in a slightly more veiled way in the British medi more widely) not only assume that the FIFA officials are guilty but also that Blatter, who hasn't been charged with anything so far, is guilty too. I've not been fiollowing it (and I couldn't care less where the World Cup is held) but shouldn't we hesitate to prejudge any trials?
There is very little doubt Fifa is a despicable and corrupt organisation (this has far more to do with its entire operations than just where world cups are held). As its head and driving force blatter would therefore have to grossly incompetent to the point of negligence, or in on it, given his position and how long he has been in it. But of course you are right not all of the official may be found guilty (those that haven't already pleaded guilty), there is always a possibility an that fifa is just unfortunate in appearing so shady, the equivalent of a weird looking person being hounded by the media regarding a crime,
But with this many bad apples, I don't think it unfair in the slightest to presume the next batch of apples from the orchard will be bad as well.
It's amazing how many rotten apples in so many rotten barrels Putin supports.
You can hide a lot of rottenness on a £2m+ salary plus benefits plus expenses (Blatter's annual take).
In many business organisations, it is quite common for the annual fees to be proportional in some way to the company's turnover - yet they may have only one vote, as does the smallest member.
If you are a shareholder in a company, then your votes are proportional to the number of shares held.
If this principle was applied to FIFA then Blatter may well not get re-elected. Should this principle nor also apply to the EU?
Sorry, which principle are you talking about? Because my understanding is that there is a 1 member 1 vote system for FIFA, the EU and Labour. So are you suggesting we move to blocks based on income?
Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said that the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is "very risky" and "quite dangerous". He said that Britain had "joined a football club" and cannot decide "in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby".
Mr Fabius has it the wrong way round. Britain joined a football club, and it is the Europeans who decided to change to rugby, i.e. We joined a trading bloc and the Europeans decided to turn it into a fledgling state instead.
Before Labour selects a leader it has to decide what it's strategy should be. They lost the election because the young were too bored to vote and the old too scared of the SNP into voting Tory in droves.
Labour needs a leader that knows how to get rid of the SNP or at least ban the SNP from coalitions or propping governments for ransom. If the SNP is removed as a threat either electorally or by law then the old will not be so scared into voting Tory the next time.
Basically the SNP is a type of militant tendency that needs to be confronted and thrown out.
Either you think that the SNP are part of the Labour Party, and I don't know if that would surprise Nicola Sturgeon or Jim Murphy more.
Or you think that 56 out of 59 of Scotland's democratically elected MPs should be removed from any vote at all in the UK Parliament.
You do realise what you seem to be saying, I hope?
It's clear what he is saying, which is none of the things you suggest. Labour is faced with a string of head exploding choices. I nearly said 'decisions', but they are incapable of those.
Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said that the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is "very risky" and "quite dangerous". He said that Britain had "joined a football club" and cannot decide "in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby".
Mr Fabius has it the wrong way round. Britain joined a football club, and it is the Europeans who decided to change to rugby, i.e. We joined a trading bloc and the Europeans decided to turn it into a fledgling state instead.
Via several treaties passed by Parkiament, including some under Mrs Thatcher...
The spending deficit was too high in the years before the 2008 financial crash, Andy Burnham will say today. In a major speech this morning, the leadership candidate will say that Labour must make this admission in order to regain trust on the economy:
“If we are to win back trust we have to start by admitting that we should not have been running a significant deficit in the years before the crash.”
Lord this is painful. What does the weasel word "significant" mean?
Of course the UK should have been running a surplus from about 2001 -2008 to reflect the fact that we were in a boom (and of course to take some of the steam out of that boom discouraging ever more reckless borrowing and lending). Somewhat ironically I think it could be argued that it was every bit as significant that they taxed too little for their spending plans, especially on risky behaviour that should have been discouraged.
A major advantage that Liz Kendall has is that she can simply walk away from the Brown catastrophe claiming it had nothing to do with her. Both Burnham and Cooper do not have that luxury. It is her strongest point but as Nick says she needs to be clearer about what she is for.
Small problem - of the four candidates so far declared, not one of them is capable of [appealing to Midlands and North].
By the way, comments here (and in a slightly more veiled way in the British medi more widely) not only assume that the FIFA officials are guilty but also that Blatter, who hasn't been charged with anything so far, is guilty too. I've not been fiollowing it (and I couldn't care less where the World Cup is held) but shouldn't we hesitate to prejudge any trials?
There is very little doubt Fifa is a despicable and corrupt organisation (this has far more to do with its entire operations than just where world cups are held). As its head and driving force blatter would therefore have to grossly incompetent to the point of negligence, or in on it, given his position and how long he has been in it. But of course you are right not all of the official may be found guilty (those that haven't already pleaded guilty), there is always a possibility an that fifa is just unfortunate in appearing so shady, the equivalent of a weird looking person being hounded by the media regarding a crime,
But with this many bad apples, I don't think it unfair in the slightest to presume the next batch of apples from the orchard will be bad as well.
It's amazing how many rotten apples in so many rotten barrels Putin supports.
I am sure his supporters will say that Putin is merely unlucky in picking so many rotten apples, or that the occasional rotten apple picked by his opponents mean he cannot be criticised for picking even more rotten apples.
Small problem - of the four candidates so far declared, not one of them is capable of [appealing to Midlands and North]. Mary Creagh is an idiot. Yvette Cooper is patronising. Andrew Burnham is tainted (and not exactly inspiring even if he wasn't). Liz Kendall would be the closest thing Labour have to such a figure, but I simply don't think she carries the intellectual guns to face whichever leader the Tories select to replace Cameron.
Kendall's chances are the hardest to read. She needs to answer the "What am I for?" question
The spending deficit was too high in the years before the 2008 financial crash, Andy Burnham will say today. In a major speech this morning, the leadership candidate will say that Labour must make this admission in order to regain trust on the economy:
“If we are to win back trust we have to start by admitting that we should not have been running a significant deficit in the years before the crash.”
Lord this is painful. What does the weasel word "significant" mean?
Of course the UK should have been running a surplus from about 2001 -2008 to reflect the fact that we were in a boom (and of course to take some of the steam out of that boom discouraging ever more reckless borrowing and lending). Somewhat ironically I think it could be argued that it was every bit as significant that they taxed too little for their spending plans, especially on risky behaviour that should have been discouraged.
A major advantage that Liz Kendall has is that she can simply walk away from the Brown catastrophe claiming it had nothing to do with her. Both Burnham and Cooper do not have that luxury. It is her strongest point but as Nick says she needs to be clearer about what she is for.
Agree to an extent. My one caveat is that Brown could with justification point out that very few governments have ever run surpluses. However, at the same time it would have been better to have higher taxes than to pay the extra for borrowing (not forgetting a lot of the much-vaunted 'investment' was PFI, which was shocking value for money compared to direct work by the state and often led to very poor-quality results - a lot of the BSF projects are falling down less than ten years after being built). There are also legitimate questions to be asked about what regulations were in place, and whether they were being enforced, and who did or did not know what was going on.
As you say, Kendall's asset is that she is a clean pair of hands. Question is, is that enough for her to (a) win and (b) be successful if she does?
I've decided I'm almost certainly going to vote No in the EuroRef. The fear attacks do work on me, I worry we would suffer in the long run, but I am so sick and tired of the thinly veiled and sometimes open contempt of EU bureaucrats and the politicians who spew the same lines. EU leaders (political and bureaucratic) will not change the direction of travel, in fact it will only intensify, and they pay only lip service to any concerns held by Britain and others, handing out baubles as they proceed inexorably on that path, and unless Cameron wins some truly amazing concessions, that fundamental problem remains.
Us being dragged along mostly unwilling is not good for us or the EU, it fosters bitterness and resentment on both sides which is not good to have at the centre of their beloved project, or even at the margins.
In many business organisations, it is quite common for the annual fees to be proportional in some way to the company's turnover - yet they may have only one vote, as does the smallest member.
If you are a shareholder in a company, then your votes are proportional to the number of shares held.
If this principle was applied to FIFA then Blatter may well not get re-elected. Should this principle nor also apply to the EU?
Sorry, which principle are you talking about? Because my understanding is that there is a 1 member 1 vote system for FIFA, the EU and Labour. So are you suggesting we move to blocks based on income?
No, blocks of votes based on contribution - like shareholders.
Thank You, MD. I missed you all. I've been catching up on all the threads since election night and I must say that the discussions seem better than ever.
In many business organisations, it is quite common for the annual fees to be proportional in some way to the company's turnover - yet they may have only one vote, as does the smallest member.
If you are a shareholder in a company, then your votes are proportional to the number of shares held.
If this principle was applied to FIFA then Blatter may well not get re-elected. Should this principle nor also apply to the EU?
Sorry, which principle are you talking about? Because my understanding is that there is a 1 member 1 vote system for FIFA, the EU and Labour. So are you suggesting we move to blocks based on income?
That is not quite right. QMV takes place on a weighted scale in the EU. We, along with Germany, France and Italy, get 29 votes. Malta, for example, gets 3.
"Labour Doesn't Get Why The Tories Won NICK COHEN June 2015"
I seem to remember Nick Hewer was once asked his impression of Ed Miliband, as a Labour member. In his wonderfully laconic style, he replied: 'Tall. Arrogant. Damp handshake.' That seems to correspond with Cohen's view!
Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said that the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is "very risky" and "quite dangerous". He said that Britain had "joined a football club" and cannot decide "in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby".
Mr Fabius has it the wrong way round. Britain joined a football club, and it is the Europeans who decided to change to rugby, i.e. We joined a trading bloc and the Europeans decided to turn it into a fledgling state instead.
Via several treaties passed by Parkiament, including some under Mrs Thatcher...
"Via several treaties passed by Parliament, including some under Mrs Thatcher... "
So politicians are venal. Realising they couldn't suddenly change the rules without the electorate noticing, they've been doing it gradually ... "Handball is now allowed in football but it's only a minor change" etc.
The big reservation I would have about voting based on contribution in the EU is that surely it would skew the system even more towards Germany, who are not exactly flavour of the month on the continent at the moment and who are the big targets of the far right (and even the far left) when they want to bang the anti-European drum.
Whilst I agree it would be prudent to say that Blatter hasn't yet been charged with anything, he was the figure-head of a regime that the guilty pleas show was monstrously corrupt. About the only defence he has going for him is he was a blind, disconnected fool. I wouldn't want to be the one running that as his defence against any subsequent charges....
Mr. Disraeli, aye, I stayed up till 3am on election night [being a mere lightweight] but was up in time to watch Balls losing, which was rather nice.
A few elite members of pb.com did spot the trends early (can't say I'm one of them). Mr. Calum got a 125/1 tip right [Labour 6 seats or fewer in Scotland, I think].
Several years ago, I read an article that compared us to the Unpopular Girl that the Mean Girls only wanted for her money, snickered about her behind her back and really never wanted her in their clique anyway.
It really struck me as a perfect analogy for the modus operandi of the EU towards the UK since we were reluctantly included.
I've decided I'm almost certainly going to vote No in the EuroRef. The fear attacks do work on me, I worry we would suffer in the long run, but I am so sick and tired of the thinly veiled and sometimes open contempt of EU bureaucrats and the politicians who spew the same lines. EU leaders (political and bureaucratic) will not change the direction of travel, in fact it will only intensify, and they pay only lip service to any concerns held by Britain and others, handing out baubles as they proceed inexorably on that path, and unless Cameron wins some truly amazing concessions, that fundamental problem remains.
Us being dragged along mostly unwilling is not good for us or the EU, it fosters bitterness and resentment on both sides which is not good to have at the centre of their beloved project, or even at the margins.
Of course the UK should have been running a surplus from about 2001 -2008 to reflect the fact that we were in a boom (and of course to take some of the steam out of that boom discouraging ever more reckless borrowing and lending).
Point of order. My understanding was that most developed economies had a small recession around ~2001 following the collapse of the dotcom bubble, and so a deficit at that time could be viewed as successful counter-cyclical spending that prevented the UK from also experiencing a recession.
Thus the error was the failure to return to surplus from a bit later in the decade, 2004 perhaps. It is also worth noting that Brown made many attempts to cut spending in some areas in this period. There was something called the Wanless Review (I think, and perhaps some others), and there was a public sector pay cap of 2%. I think the Treasury forecasts went wrong in being too optimistic on tax revenues - something which has not changed at all with the OBR in the period 2010-2015.
Of course, from a political point of view, none of this matters. Just as it doesn't matter that Cameron and Osborne fully signed up to support the Labour spending plans at the end of your period in around 2005-8. Just as with Labour support of the ERM in 1992, the public have chosen to punish the party in office at the time, and to overlook the political consensus that existed.
"The spending deficit was too high in the years before the 2008 financial crash, Andy Burnham will say today. In a major speech this morning, the leadership candidate will say that Labour must make this admission in order to regain trust on the economy"
You can almost see the gritted teeth. What's most revealing about the wording is the clear implication that Andy B doesn't really believe it, but is saying that Labour have to go along with this line because that's what the focus groups tell them.
It's New Labour all over again: all about message, nothing about substance.
It is also worth noting that Brown made many attempts to cut spending in some areas in this period. There was something called the Wanless Review (I think, and perhaps some others), and there was a public sector pay cap of 2%.
Looks like my memory of the Wanless Review was wrong and that was something else, but it's easy to find a news story from 2004 about Brown's attempts to save £20bn.
I've decided I'm almost certainly going to vote No in the EuroRef. The fear attacks do work on me, I worry we would suffer in the long run, but I am so sick and tired of the thinly veiled and sometimes open contempt of EU bureaucrats and the politicians who spew the same lines. EU leaders (political and bureaucratic) will not change the direction of travel, in fact it will only intensify, and they pay only lip service to any concerns held by Britain and others, handing out baubles as they proceed inexorably on that path, and unless Cameron wins some truly amazing concessions, that fundamental problem remains.
Us being dragged along mostly unwilling is not good for us or the EU, it fosters bitterness and resentment on both sides which is not good to have at the centre of their beloved project, or even at the margins.
There are arguments for leaving the EU, but to make them properly you in your case have to explain why being dragged along unwillingly outside the EU would be any different. BTW -- I do understand how difficult it is to make complex points in a few lines. I think this is going to bedevil discussion on here even more than normal over the next few weeks months years.
The big reservation I would have about voting based on contribution in the EU is that surely it would skew the system even more towards Germany, who are not exactly flavour of the month on the continent at the moment and who are the big targets of the far right (and even the far left) when they want to bang the anti-European drum.
True, but conversely, Poland is against her immigrants to the UK not being able to claim benefits instantly for two reasons : presumably Poland would still have to pay their benefits until they 'qualified for UK benefits', and also Poland often receives a net (repatriated) income from their immigrants to the UK ( as well as savings on Polish benefits) as UK benefits are worth a lot more money than Polish benefits. So a strong Eastern and even Southern European block could outvote the stronger economic and greater contributing countries.
Would Poland still object if the UK paid the same monetary value of benefits (and qualification) to their immigrants as Poland does?
Just watched This Week on iPlayer. Fairly interesting, and I especially liked the last few minutes with Susie Dent (of Countdown's Dictionary Corner) analysing political terms.
Whilst I agree it would be prudent to say that Blatter hasn't yet been charged with anything, he was the figure-head of a regime that the guilty pleas show was monstrously corrupt. About the only defence he has going for him is he was a blind, disconnected fool. I wouldn't want to be the one running that as his defence against any subsequent charges....
Being a blind disconnected fool may be a defence to criminal charges, but it does rather imply that one is too stupid to run anything.
I really don't think Mr Blatter is stupid!
Nor do I, but that's the defence he's going with, which does not speak well of how well he could defend himself without pleading incompetence by another name like he did
Yes, a good article, even if it's a bit rich of him to blame Cameron for Scottish nationalism.
I thought this paragraph was particularly apposite:
Miliband tried to construct a winning coalition as a child tries to build a house out of Lego. He would take bricks from his toy box — the Scots here, the intelligentsia, the Northern working class and selected ethnic minorities there — and place them on top of each other until his 35 per cent strategy was complete. So confident was he that, even on election night, when his house was crashing around him, he still thought he could win.
Of course the UK should have been running a surplus from about 2001 -2008 to reflect the fact that we were in a boom (and of course to take some of the steam out of that boom discouraging ever more reckless borrowing and lending).
Point of order. My understanding was that most developed economies had a small recession around ~2001 following the collapse of the dotcom bubble, and so a deficit at that time could be viewed as successful counter-cyclical spending that prevented the UK from also experiencing a recession.
Thus the error was the failure to return to surplus from a bit later in the decade, 2004 perhaps. It is also worth noting that Brown made many attempts to cut spending in some areas in this period. There was something called the Wanless Review (I think, and perhaps some others), and there was a public sector pay cap of 2%. I think the Treasury forecasts went wrong in being too optimistic on tax revenues - something which has not changed at all with the OBR in the period 2010-2015.
Of course, from a political point of view, none of this matters. Just as it doesn't matter that Cameron and Osborne fully signed up to support the Labour spending plans at the end of your period in around 2005-8. Just as with Labour support of the ERM in 1992, the public have chosen to punish the party in office at the time, and to overlook the political consensus that existed.
The dotcom boom was largely a financial market phenomenon with remarkably little impact on the "real" economy.
The correct approach for any government of any stripe surely ought to have been that an economy that was growing above trend and throwing off excess taxes should be in surplus and that was the case in the UK for most of the noughties as the financial bubble grew.
Of course net debt was much lower then than it is now. There is an argument that the rational response is that governments should aim for modest surpluses even in trend years so as to reduce the debt/GDP ratio to a safer level as fast as possible.
I've decided I'm almost certainly going to vote No in the EuroRef. The fear attacks do work on me, I worry we would suffer in the long run, but I am so sick and tired of the thinly veiled and sometimes open contempt of EU bureaucrats and the politicians who spew the same lines. EU leaders (political and bureaucratic) will not change the direction of travel, in fact it will only intensify, and they pay only lip service to any concerns held by Britain and others, .
There are arguments for leaving the EU, but to make them properly you in your case have to explain why being dragged along unwillingly outside the EU would be any different. BTW -- I do understand how difficult it is to make complex points in a few lines. I think this is going to bedevil discussion on here even more than normal over the next few weeks months years.
It might not be much better being dragged along outside, hence my reluctance to consider BOO - I don't know that we would be better off. But it's the difference, to borrow and amend from The Thick of It a bit, between being punched in the face and punching ourselves in the face. Either way, we're getting punched and that will make us angry, but at least we'd not be as much of an active participant in the punch, as they cried in defence 'You're doing the punching too, so no complaints'.
I take your point about making complex points in a few lines, and my flippant summary may not seem to help with that, but I'm reaching a breaking point on the EU and it really it not actually that complex when we get down to it, I think the Eureaucrats have it right that far at least. Do we want to be an active member actively pursuing ever closer Union and the useless bureaucratic interference that for some reason they insist must come along with the good that may come from that closer integration? No I don't, but the contempt of the EU toward those who want to reform - sorry, I just have no faith in the sincerity of its leaders who say otherwise, their actions speak loudly on that - or change the direction of travel in any meaningful way, means we are unlikely to get something which retains the positives of the EU without the negatives ever expanding.
I've been assuming I'd vote Yes in the end for years, I voted LD in the 2014 Euros for crying out loud, and like most people I don't like much about the EU, but would it really make things better to be outside of it? For one we could not keep an eye on or influence things as much. But I'm just sick and tired of it, and it will just go on and on for decades, and I no longer feel I can handle that.
They keep telling us, directly or indirectly, to put up or shut up, and in this I think they are right. And if they force that binary choice, to leave or stop complaining, even the fear of negative consequences loses its sting somewhat.
If Volker Trier was in the pay of Nigel Farage, he couldn't have come up with a more useful interview for Better off Out. What sort of idiot says that (1) a foreign country should not listen to its people and (2) that if it asks for something it should be ignored?
He's in denial. From his point of view, it will set an even more dangerous precedent for the EU if the UK votes to leave because of its obstinacy.
It also explains why he works for their equivalent of the CBI rather than actually in business.
A blanket refusal to negotiate terms with a partner who wants to amend a contractual relationship is a very very high risk strategy.
Rubbish
I spent my life developing and modifying partnerships and relationships.
In this circumstance you would always have a conversation, even if there is no substantive change you are willing to implement
"Labour Doesn't Get Why The Tories Won NICK COHEN June 2015"
He does write well:
"Equally obviously, it would help Labour if it had leaders who talked to the voters as if they came from the same human species — or if that is too much to ask, from close relatives among the higher primates."
If Volker Trier was in the pay of Nigel Farage, he couldn't have come up with a more useful interview for Better off Out. What sort of idiot says that (1) a foreign country should not listen to its people and (2) that if it asks for something it should be ignored?
He's in denial. From his point of view, it will set an even more dangerous precedent for the EU if the UK votes to leave because of its obstinacy.
He said that Britain leaving would be bad for both Britain and Germany and may adversely impact on the 400 000 jobs in the UK with German employers. It seems a reasonable view to me:
That's a highly selective quotation of what he said. He also expresses astonishment that the UK is even allowing a vote and does not want the EU to compromise one inch with the electorate to convince them to stay.
The classic refrain of eurocrats down the ages.
Up until now, I've thought the referendum was pointless; the result beyond doubt. I was firmly on the 'in' side of the argument, and expected to win.
This sort of behaviour and language, however, really really grates. Patronising, sneering, condescending, arrogant, antidemocratic nonsense.
It's the first time I can see a BOO win as anything other than a pipe dream. If European leaders and other bureaucrats persist in this sort of language, and persist in treating the British elecorate like children, it's going to allow national pride (and a measure of jingoism) to swell. Brexit becomes a much more likely outcome.
He said that Britain leaving would be bad for both Britain and Germany and may adversely impact on the 400 000 jobs in the UK with German employers. It seems a reasonable view to me:
And he may be right - so why is he saying that Germany should refuse to negotiate to keep Britain in the EU? It's not logical. It's not even sensible. As for the suggestion that asking the people their views is 'astonishing...'
Perfectly acceptable if they think Britain as usual is being unreasonable. Why should they negotiate if they do not want changes made.
Comments
I cannot see it myself, and a return of David Miliband is soap opera rather than a realistic possibility.
A blanket refusal to negotiate terms with a partner who wants to amend a contractual relationship is a very very high risk strategy.
Kendall's chances are the hardest to read. She needs to answer the "What am I for?" question before the media get round to the usual roller-coaster treatment - they build people up and then savage them when they make a slip. Members are up for a "new generation" candidate, and even many members on the left aren't yet terminally anti-Kendall, but I think her price is now too short. Like Henry I'd think Cooper ought to be narrow favourite, though Burnham has a lot of affection in the membership. It won't be Creagh - just not sufficiently known.
By the way, comments here (and in a slightly more veiled way in the British media more widely) not only assume that the FIFA officials are guilty but also that Blatter, who hasn't been charged with anything so far, is guilty too. I've not been fiollowing it (and I couldn't care less where the World Cup is held) but shouldn't we hesitate to prejudge any trials?
The classic refrain of eurocrats down the ages.
If, in his mind, the EU is already a United State then it makes his position perfectly explicable. After all, many people on here have complained of the special deals desired by the United Kingdom's less quiescent regions. If the out campaign can present a vote for IN as a vote for European statehood in line with this chap's apparent assumptions then they would win the referendum at a canter.
* If we leave aside the differences created by 300 years of Union in one case and 40 years of a quasi-Union in the other.
Has Laurent Fabius also been recruited by the NO to EU campaign?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11636916/France-accuses-David-Cameron-of-trying-to-dismantle-European-Union.html
A lot can happen in five years.
It's certainly a never say never scenario, rather than "a soap opera".
Creagh believes, in the face of all scientific evidence, that TB is passed solely from cattle to cattle and not from badgers to cattle (or says she does to appease the pro-badger lobby, which in a way would be an even worse error). She also believes that vaccinating badgers would solve the problem of TB among them (again, not true and even five minutes' thought would show someone with a brain why it wouldn't help the cubs of infected badgers, who stay underground for the first fortnight of their lives). Her tenure as Shadow DEFRA minister was notable for her complete refutation of an evidence-based farming policy painfully formulated over many years and her bitter attacks on the farming industry. I'd say she qualifies as an idiot. If Labour cannot see that because of her personal charm, that's their problem.
Cooper - I wouldn't know enough to comment, but if she's stiff on TV that's a serious drawback. Certainly she comes across as rude and patronising - like Thatcher but without Thatcher's force of character or strength of purpose.
'Burnham isn't seen as tainted (presumably this refers to Stafford) - people who know about Stafford recognise that he wasn't responsible'
He was and is regarded as responsible for the coverup. He is still blamed for it, particularly round here, due to mistakes made in his earlier tenure as Minister of State surrounding the awarding of foundation trust status, and is also still mentioned in several ongoing legal actions surrounding criminal negligence at Stafford Hospital. Again, if Labour think merely because other people were involved somehow Burnham can dodge that bullet, they're kidding themselves. If he's also 'diffident and emotional' (which implies indecision, a la Brown) that makes him even less attractive.
Good grief, how ominous that post looks for Labour. Liz Kendall the only one not showing massive flaws...
Or you think that 56 out of 59 of Scotland's democratically elected MPs should be removed from any vote at all in the UK Parliament.
You do realise what you seem to be saying, I hope?
But with this many bad apples, I don't think it unfair in the slightest to presume the next batch of apples from the orchard will be bad as well.
Should we apply it to Scotland?
@malcolmg - refusing to negotiate on the grounds that someone is 'unreasonable' is hardly a clever strategy. Better to negotiate first and then later say they were unreasonable. Or to put it another way, supposing Mark Carney turned around and said he was 'astonished' that Scotland was being offered more devolution to keep it in the UK merely because the SNP had done well in the election - wouldn't you be annoyed with him and tell him to mind his own damn business?
I guess that means that Blatter is Blofeld...
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/603843658723565568
For mirth's sake:
https://twitter.com/pjm1kbw/status/597364224440971266
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11636840/Scotlands-lawyers-David-Cameron-delivering-on-powers.html
"Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said that the referendum on Britain's membership of the EU is "very risky" and "quite dangerous".
He said that Britain had "joined a football club" and cannot decide "in the middle of the match that they want to play rugby".
Most people who voted in 1975 thought we were joining a football club. Now we are being told that it was indeed a football club - a rugby football club. Didn't you check the small print?
Brilliant.
If you are a shareholder in a company, then your votes are proportional to the number of shares held.
If this principle was applied to FIFA then Blatter may well not get re-elected. Should this principle nor also apply to the EU?
If would appear - like the Labour party - Blatter has arranged things and so gets his support from those who are fiscally dependent on FIFA's largesse.
Via several treaties passed by Parkiament, including some under Mrs Thatcher...
Lord this is painful. What does the weasel word "significant" mean?
Of course the UK should have been running a surplus from about 2001 -2008 to reflect the fact that we were in a boom (and of course to take some of the steam out of that boom discouraging ever more reckless borrowing and lending). Somewhat ironically I think it could be argued that it was every bit as significant that they taxed too little for their spending plans, especially on risky behaviour that should have been discouraged.
A major advantage that Liz Kendall has is that she can simply walk away from the Brown catastrophe claiming it had nothing to do with her. Both Burnham and Cooper do not have that luxury. It is her strongest point but as Nick says she needs to be clearer about what she is for.
Liz Kendall opening remarks to Press Gallery Lunch
https://m.facebook.com/adrian.mcmenamin.1/posts/10155522686885142
It comes over loud and clear to me - she is for pragmatism and "what works", instead of ideology.
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/node/6075
"Labour Doesn't Get Why The Tories Won
NICK COHEN
June 2015"
Of course the UK should have been running a surplus from about 2001 -2008 to reflect the fact that we were in a boom (and of course to take some of the steam out of that boom discouraging ever more reckless borrowing and lending). Somewhat ironically I think it could be argued that it was every bit as significant that they taxed too little for their spending plans, especially on risky behaviour that should have been discouraged.
A major advantage that Liz Kendall has is that she can simply walk away from the Brown catastrophe claiming it had nothing to do with her. Both Burnham and Cooper do not have that luxury. It is her strongest point but as Nick says she needs to be clearer about what she is for.
Agree to an extent. My one caveat is that Brown could with justification point out that very few governments have ever run surpluses. However, at the same time it would have been better to have higher taxes than to pay the extra for borrowing (not forgetting a lot of the much-vaunted 'investment' was PFI, which was shocking value for money compared to direct work by the state and often led to very poor-quality results - a lot of the BSF projects are falling down less than ten years after being built). There are also legitimate questions to be asked about what regulations were in place, and whether they were being enforced, and who did or did not know what was going on.
As you say, Kendall's asset is that she is a clean pair of hands. Question is, is that enough for her to (a) win and (b) be successful if she does?
All Burnham's from the North, Kendall's from the newer slicker sorts plus noticeably East London/Essex. Cooper has the lower leagues.
Us being dragged along mostly unwilling is not good for us or the EU, it fosters bitterness and resentment on both sides which is not good to have at the centre of their beloved project, or even at the margins.
None of which had any popular ratification.
"Via several treaties passed by Parliament, including some under Mrs Thatcher... "
So politicians are venal. Realising they couldn't suddenly change the rules without the electorate noticing, they've been doing it gradually ... "Handball is now allowed in football but it's only a minor change" etc.
The big reservation I would have about voting based on contribution in the EU is that surely it would skew the system even more towards Germany, who are not exactly flavour of the month on the continent at the moment and who are the big targets of the far right (and even the far left) when they want to bang the anti-European drum.
A few elite members of pb.com did spot the trends early (can't say I'm one of them). Mr. Calum got a 125/1 tip right [Labour 6 seats or fewer in Scotland, I think].
It really struck me as a perfect analogy for the modus operandi of the EU towards the UK since we were reluctantly included.
Thus the error was the failure to return to surplus from a bit later in the decade, 2004 perhaps. It is also worth noting that Brown made many attempts to cut spending in some areas in this period. There was something called the Wanless Review (I think, and perhaps some others), and there was a public sector pay cap of 2%. I think the Treasury forecasts went wrong in being too optimistic on tax revenues - something which has not changed at all with the OBR in the period 2010-2015.
Of course, from a political point of view, none of this matters. Just as it doesn't matter that Cameron and Osborne fully signed up to support the Labour spending plans at the end of your period in around 2005-8. Just as with Labour support of the ERM in 1992, the public have chosen to punish the party in office at the time, and to overlook the political consensus that existed.
It's New Labour all over again: all about message, nothing about substance.
Not really of course, £10 on Cooper @6.8 set to lay of for equal profit @4
BTW -- I do understand how difficult it is to make complex points in a few lines. I think this is going to bedevil discussion on here even more than normal over the next few weeks months years.
Would Poland still object if the UK paid the same monetary value of benefits (and qualification) to their immigrants as Poland does?
I thought this paragraph was particularly apposite:
Miliband tried to construct a winning coalition as a child tries to build a house out of Lego. He would take bricks from his toy box — the Scots here, the intelligentsia, the Northern working class and selected ethnic minorities there — and place them on top of each other until his 35 per cent strategy was complete. So confident was he that, even on election night, when his house was crashing around him, he still thought he could win.
New Thread
The dotcom boom was largely a financial market phenomenon with remarkably little impact on the "real" economy.
The correct approach for any government of any stripe surely ought to have been that an economy that was growing above trend and throwing off excess taxes should be in surplus and that was the case in the UK for most of the noughties as the financial bubble grew.
Of course net debt was much lower then than it is now. There is an argument that the rational response is that governments should aim for modest surpluses even in trend years so as to reduce the debt/GDP ratio to a safer level as fast as possible.
I take your point about making complex points in a few lines, and my flippant summary may not seem to help with that, but I'm reaching a breaking point on the EU and it really it not actually that complex when we get down to it, I think the Eureaucrats have it right that far at least. Do we want to be an active member actively pursuing ever closer Union and the useless bureaucratic interference that for some reason they insist must come along with the good that may come from that closer integration? No I don't, but the contempt of the EU toward those who want to reform - sorry, I just have no faith in the sincerity of its leaders who say otherwise, their actions speak loudly on that - or change the direction of travel in any meaningful way, means we are unlikely to get something which retains the positives of the EU without the negatives ever expanding.
I've been assuming I'd vote Yes in the end for years, I voted LD in the 2014 Euros for crying out loud, and like most people I don't like much about the EU, but would it really make things better to be outside of it? For one we could not keep an eye on or influence things as much. But I'm just sick and tired of it, and it will just go on and on for decades, and I no longer feel I can handle that.
They keep telling us, directly or indirectly, to put up or shut up, and in this I think they are right. And if they force that binary choice, to leave or stop complaining, even the fear of negative consequences loses its sting somewhat.
In this circumstance you would always have a conversation, even if there is no substantive change you are willing to implement
"Equally obviously, it would help Labour if it had leaders who talked to the voters as if they came from the same human species — or if that is too much to ask, from close relatives among the higher primates."
This sort of behaviour and language, however, really really grates. Patronising, sneering, condescending, arrogant, antidemocratic nonsense.
It's the first time I can see a BOO win as anything other than a pipe dream. If European leaders and other bureaucrats persist in this sort of language, and persist in treating the British elecorate like children, it's going to allow national pride (and a measure of jingoism) to swell. Brexit becomes a much more likely outcome.