When talking about the response to biological weapons attacks, it is interesting to see how the US's posture has changed in the last few years wrt a nuclear response to a biological or chemical attack on its own territory.
Basically, the US still reserves the right to use chemical weapons against states that use biological weapons against them, under certain circumstances.
Leaving aside Assad's alleged complicity in a needless (he was winning at the time) chemical attack cleverly launched by him a few miles from where the international weapons inspectors were staying, what is this phrase 'murdering/gassing/bombing/slaughtering/butchering/horrible adjective of the day' *his own population*' about? Assad is dealing with an insurgency/civil war. By virtue of that fact, he is indeed killing his own people. By the same token, the people who are trying to kill him and his forces are also killing their own people. The clue's in the title. Would it be preferrable if he was killing someone elses people?
When talking about the response to biological weapons attacks, it is interesting to see how the US's posture has changed in the last few years wrt a nuclear response to a biological or chemical attack on its own territory.
Basically, the US still reserves the right to use chemical weapons against states that use biological weapons against them, under certain circumstances.
Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN and has now disposed of all its chemical weapons as confirmed by the OPCW.
Question regarding the summer budget, it's close to the summer recess for Parliament isn't it? When was the last time we had a budget so close to the recess?
So a simple question: do you think Assad used chemical weapons?
Yes, and now, as then, you lack any effective counter argument.
Simple answer - there is significant evidence that chemical attacks were carried out by anti-Assad forces, who had the motive, means and opportunity. But I feel we've been around this loop before too.
Can you give some support to your notion that a lawless islamist failed state awash with weapons and militias is better than an arab nationalist strongman? Would you prefer to live in Assad's Syria or post-Gadaffi Libya? Which do you think creates a bigger issue for Western security? Utterly absurd.
The absurd thing is you equating the situation as it is today with how it was a couple of years ago.
Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. This is abhorrent, and is massively against our own interests. We in the west were utterly wrong when we ignored Halabja. Ignoring Assad's use as well has done us absolutely no good.
You have no logical position in this, only opposition.
And your final question is preposterous.
No evidence, No answers, No coherence, No surprises.
Is that the best you can do? lol.
I've given plenty of evidence passim. You chose to disbelieve it.
No, I save the best I can do to respond to genuine arguments. Emotionally incontinent armchair warmongering I will simply point out as such. 'lol'.
Someone posted this video on Twitter. It's the best explanation of why Kendall looks set to bomb -- whatever Labour's "soft left" thought of Blair's policies, he had already established himself as an undeniably A-grade politician, in a way Kendall just hasn't:
(also interesting that he used the words "stop the excesses of the free market".....not sure I could see Kendall saying something like that.)
I was reading Gnesh's (sp?) biog of George last night. In 1994 he was the Tories' official representative at the Labour Conference. He was there with his pal Danny the Fink. After hearing Blair's leadership speech they both concluded that the Tories were never going to beat him.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never. He said all the right things for his base but then made it clear that he was aspirational not only for the country but for those that wanted to get on in life as well. An unbeatable combination that left the Tories nowhere to go.
Politicians of Osborne's vintage describe him as the master, not because they necessarily agreed with his policies or his arguments but because he was truly brilliant at putting and holding together an unbeatable coalition. A master politician.
The fact that he wasted both his opportunity and talent is a tragedy for the country.
DavidL That was true until 2005, but he lost some of his base then to the LDs and Respect, other than Iraq he did not too badly on the economy etc and started some public service reforms. He also pushed through legislation expanding homosexual rights and introduced the minimum wage
The Eurozone crisis is and was the response to that dislocation. If you want to remain inside a single currency block, you need to have flexible labour markets and relatively small government, otherwise - when the next recession hits - you will be unable to meaningfully respond.
There appears to be a school of thought at there isn't much that could be done to meaningfully respond in any case, interest rates are close to zero in most major economies now, further QE is unlikely to push them any lower.
It is correct that there is no monetary response. However, if your deficit and government debt are at relatively modest levels, then you are in no danger or being forced into a negative feedback loop where spending must be reduced to lower the budget deficit, which results in lower aggregate demand and higher unemployment, and in turn results in the economy contracting requiring more spending cuts...
Shouldn't HSBC have ditched at least 4 of it's 5 Billion of Greek bonds like... yesterday :?!
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are presenting gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
Someone posted this video on Twitter. It's the best explanation of why Kendall looks set to bomb -- whatever Labour's "soft left" thought of Blair's policies, he had already established himself as an undeniably A-grade politician, in a way Kendall just hasn't:
(also interesting that he used the words "stop the excesses of the free market".....not sure I could see Kendall saying something like that.)
I was reading Gnesh's (sp?) biog of George last night. In 1994 he was the Tories' official representative at the Labour Conference. He was there with his pal Danny the Fink. After hearing Blair's leadership speech they both concluded that the Tories were never going to beat him.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never. He said all the right things for his base but then made it clear that he was aspirational not only for the country but for those that wanted to get on in life as well. An unbeatable combination that left the Tories nowhere to go.
Politicians of Osborne's vintage describe him as the master, not because they necessarily agreed with his policies or his arguments but because he was truly brilliant at putting and holding together an unbeatable coalition. A master politician.
The fact that he wasted both his opportunity and talent is a tragedy for the country.
But also very much of his time. His platform of pro-europeanism, active internationalism, radical devolution, diversity and multiculturalism, pro-immigration and gender politics would not find as big an audience now.
Where he called it right (from a floating voter attractiveness point of view) was economy and growth first, public services investment a very strong second and a blue-collar toughness on crime and terrorism third.
And he didn't sound or look Labour in any way shape or form. Even when he was saying quite Labour things.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never.
I recently found an old Matthew Parris column circa 2005 which concluded with a Ken Clarke quote saying something along the lines of, "This government will run out of money. We may as well keep our powder dry until then."
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
You forget the only thing advocates of intervention in Syria care about, Israel wants Assad gone. A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
When talking about the response to biological weapons attacks, it is interesting to see how the US's posture has changed in the last few years wrt a nuclear response to a biological or chemical attack on its own territory.
Basically, the US still reserves the right to use chemical weapons against states that use biological weapons against them, under certain circumstances.
Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN and has now disposed of all its chemical weapons as confirmed by the OPCW.
Hasbara troll.
I'm not Jewish, and have no particular love for Israel (although I say the same for the Palestinians as well). I have absolutely no connection with them, and in fact am married to someone from a majority-Muslim country.
Try again.
"Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN and has now disposed of all its chemical weapons as confirmed by the OPCW."
I think you've missed declared out of that sentence.
"Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN"
Go on. Make us laugh. You are aware that the OPCW were not allowed to apportion blame for their use?
Someone posted this video on Twitter. It's the best explanation of why Kendall looks set to bomb -- whatever Labour's "soft left" thought of Blair's policies, he had already established himself as an undeniably A-grade politician, in a way Kendall just hasn't:
(also interesting that he used the words "stop the excesses of the free market".....not sure I could see Kendall saying something like that.)
I was reading Gnesh's (sp?) biog of George last night. In 1994 he was the Tories' official representative at the Labour Conference. He was there with his pal Danny the Fink. After hearing Blair's leadership speech they both concluded that the Tories were never going to beat him.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never. He said all the right things for his base but then made it clear that he was aspirational not only for the country but for those that wanted to get on in life as well. An unbeatable combination that left the Tories nowhere to go.
Politicians of Osborne's vintage describe him as the master, not because they necessarily agreed with his policies or his arguments but because he was truly brilliant at putting and holding together an unbeatable coalition. A master politician.
The fact that he wasted both his opportunity and talent is a tragedy for the country.
But also very much of his time. His platform of pro-europeanism, active internationalism, radical devolution, diversity and multiculturalism, pro-immigration and gender politics would not find as big an audience now.
Where he called it right (from a floating voter attractiveness point of view) was economy and growth first, public services investment a very strong second and a blue-collar toughness on crime and terrorism third.
And he didn't sound or look Labour in any way shape or form. Even when he was saying quite Labour things.
Ahhh... but were Tony Blair standing today, it would be on a platform of mild-euroscepticism, pro same law & order, plus a little bit of fiscal rectitude, all while caring for the most vulnerable in society.
You don't think Tony actually believed what he was saying, do you?
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
You forget the only thing advocates of intervention in Syria care about, Israel wants Assad gone. A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
When talking about the response to biological weapons attacks, it is interesting to see how the US's posture has changed in the last few years wrt a nuclear response to a biological or chemical attack on its own territory.
Basically, the US still reserves the right to use chemical weapons against states that use biological weapons against them, under certain circumstances.
Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN and has now disposed of all its chemical weapons as confirmed by the OPCW.
Hasbara troll.
I'm not Jewish, and have no particular love for Israel (although I say the same for the Palestinians as well). I have absolutely no connection with them, and in fact am married to someone from a majority-Muslim country.
Try again.
"Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN and has now disposed of all its chemical weapons as confirmed by the OPCW."
I think you've missed declared out of that sentence.
"Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN"
Go on. Make us laugh. You are aware that the OPCW were not allowed to apportion blame for their use?
In essence the euro can only work in a USE with central control of taxes and spending and a central govt with overriding power against the individual parts. IE the end of the nation states within the USE. Unfortunately, none of the existing euro members seem remotely ready for this. Until they are these kind of problems will persist.
I'm not sure that's quite true. In the era before the First World war, the gold standard was used by the vast majority of industrialised countries, and acted - to all intents and purposes - as a single currency.
Where the Euro fails is that the Southern rim of Europe had historically followed a growth pattern that allowed inflexible labour markets to be offset by constant devaluation and inflation. When the Euro came along, prices for labour and the like kept rising in Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy (which made people feel temporarily wealthy), but which led to enormous imbalances.
The Eurozone crisis is and was the response to that dislocation. If you want to remain inside a single currency block, you need to have flexible labour markets and relatively small government, otherwise - when the next recession hits - you will be unable to meaningfully respond.
Some of the Southern Rim have appreciated this (Spain being the best example), but those in Greece (and, one might argue Italy and France) still think that an inflexible labour market and and an inflexible currency work together.
In the western world the notion of wage rates going up and down really hasn't existed for decades. Instead those with secure jobs have tended to let those who haven't take the strain. Hence the 25%+ unemployment rates in Spain for example. Few governments survive long by imposing major pay cuts - devaluation is so much easier, but of course not possible in the euro. Hence I think in essence my point stands. The Euro is unlikley to survive without much greater control from the centre which implies much less for the individual parts.
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are presenting gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
I am not presenting them as facts: I am saying what might well have happened. Since that course of action was not taken, there cannot be 'facts' in relation to it.
The only facts we have is that we now have a much bigger mess that directly threatens us and our interests. It could have been avoided.
Actually, I believe I did say that Iraq was threatened as well; although my main point was wrt Jordan, Turkey and Israel. Would have to go back and check, though.
Someone posted this video on Twitter. It's the best explanation of why Kendall looks set to bomb -- whatever Labour's "soft left" thought of Blair's policies, he had already established himself as an undeniably A-grade politician, in a way Kendall just hasn't:
(also interesting that he used the words "stop the excesses of the free market".....not sure I could see Kendall saying something like that.)
I was reading Gnesh's (sp?) biog of George last night. In 1994 he was the Tories' official representative at the Labour Conference. He was there with his pal Danny the Fink. After hearing Blair's leadership speech they both concluded that the Tories were never going to beat him.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never. He said all the right things for his base but then made it clear that he was aspirational not only for the country but for those that wanted to get on in life as well. An unbeatable combination that left the Tories nowhere to go.
Politicians of Osborne's vintage describe him as the master, not because they necessarily agreed with his policies or his arguments but because he was truly brilliant at putting and holding together an unbeatable coalition. A master politician.
The fact that he wasted both his opportunity and talent is a tragedy for the country.
But also very much of his time. His platform of pro-europeanism, active internationalism, radical devolution, diversity and multiculturalism, pro-immigration and gender politics would not find as big an audience now.
Where he called it right (from a floating voter attractiveness point of view) was economy and growth first, public services investment a very strong second and a blue-collar toughness on crime and terrorism third.
And he didn't sound or look Labour in any way shape or form. Even when he was saying quite Labour things.
You make it sound like he actually believed in any or all of these things. Do you think he would be promoting the same package today? Of course not. That is not where the unbeatable coalition is.
That clip must make Labour supporters weep. I cannot think of anyone in front line Labour politics who could come across like that today, not even close. Do they have anyone who can even speak vaguely intelligently about the market, let alone put it in a broader context, let alone give a reasonably credible policy solution. The times I have heard Leslie speak have just made me sigh at the lack of credible alternatives.
Of course there are damn few in the Tory party either but they are one or two that are closer starting with Osborne himself who may not have anything like that natural talent but is a conscientious student.
When talking about the response to biological weapons attacks, it is interesting to see how the US's posture has changed in the last few years wrt a nuclear response to a biological or chemical attack on its own territory.
Basically, the US still reserves the right to use chemical weapons against states that use biological weapons against them, under certain circumstances.
Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN and has now disposed of all its chemical weapons as confirmed by the OPCW.
Hasbara troll.
I'm not Jewish, and have no particular love for Israel (although I say the same for the Palestinians as well). I have absolutely no connection with them, and in fact am married to someone from a majority-Muslim country.
Try again.
"Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN and has now disposed of all its chemical weapons as confirmed by the OPCW."
I think you've missed declared out of that sentence.
"Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN"
Go on. Make us laugh. You are aware that the OPCW were not allowed to apportion blame for their use?
DavidL That was true until 2005, but he lost some of his base then to the LDs and Respect, other than Iraq he did not too badly on the economy etc and started some public service reforms. He also pushed through legislation expanding homosexual rights and introduced the minimum wage
He did several good things but reform of the public sector is something that it is actually easier for a Labour government to deliver than a Tory because one is given the benefit of the doubt and one is met with deep cynicism.
A Blair who had had the courage to get rid of Brown by 2001 and not wasted his energy on international disasters could have given us affordable public services for the next 50 years.
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
Someone posted this video on Twitter. It's the best explanation of why Kendall looks set to bomb -- whatever Labour's "soft left" thought of Blair's policies, he had already established himself as an undeniably A-grade politician, in a way Kendall just hasn't:
(also interesting that he used the words "stop the excesses of the free market".....not sure I could see Kendall saying something like that.)
I was reading Gnesh's (sp?) biog of George last night. In 1994 he was the Tories' official representative at the Labour Conference. He was there with his pal Danny the Fink. After hearing Blair's leadership speech they both concluded that the Tories were never going to beat him.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never. He said all the right things for his base but then made it clear that he was aspirational not only for the country but for those that wanted to get on in life as well. An unbeatable combination that left the Tories nowhere to go.
Politicians of Osborne's vintage describe him as the master, not because they necessarily agreed with his policies or his arguments but because he was truly brilliant at putting and holding together an unbeatable coalition. A master politician.
The fact that he wasted both his opportunity and talent is a tragedy for the country.
But also very much of his time. His platform of pro-europeanism, active internationalism, radical devolution, diversity and multiculturalism, pro-immigration and gender politics would not find as big an audience now.
Where he called it right (from a floating voter attractiveness point of view) was economy and growth first, public services investment a very strong second and a blue-collar toughness on crime and terrorism third.
And he didn't sound or look Labour in any way shape or form. Even when he was saying quite Labour things.
Ahhh... but were Tony Blair standing today, it would be on a platform of mild-euroscepticism, pro same law & order, plus a little bit of fiscal rectitude, all while caring for the most vulnerable in society.
You don't think Tony actually believed what he was saying, do you?
DavidL Did Wilson or Attlee talk a great talk about the market when they won? They did not win as well as Blair (bar 1945), but they won. Blair also advocated a balanced approach using a growing market to fund investment in public services, Osborne is advocating taking public spending as a percentage of gdp down to its lowest level for decades
In the western world the notion of wage rates going up and down really hasn't existed for decades. Instead those with secure jobs have tended to let those who haven't take the strain. Hence the 25%+ unemployment rates in Spain for example. Few governments survive long by imposing major pay cuts - devaluation is so much easier, but of course not possible in the euro. Hence I think in essence my point stands. The Euro is unlikley to survive without much greater control from the centre which implies much less for the individual parts.
Labour flexibility is not simply about wage rates going up and down: it's about the ability to vary hours worked according to how busy a firm is; and it's about rules making temporary or contract working attractive.
One of the key reasons Spain has 22% unemployment is because it dramatically liberalised labour markets in the last five years. If you make it easier to fire workers in the midst of a recession, then you are inevitably going to make unemployment much, much worse.
But the consequence of this is that Spanish economy now look much more like the German economy than it used to. Spain's monthly exports have gone from c. €10bn/month a decade ago to €20bn now. It is Europe's second largest car maker, after Germany, and it no longer runs a current account deficit.
You can play the Euro game: but transitioning to a flexible, export focussed, economy is incredibly difficult. Spain and Ireland have done it. Portugal is half way there. France and Italy are so-so. Greece is largely unreformed.
Someone posted this video on Twitter. It's the best explanation of why Kendall looks set to bomb -- whatever Labour's "soft left" thought of Blair's policies, he had already established himself as an undeniably A-grade politician, in a way Kendall just hasn't:
(also interesting that he used the words "stop the excesses of the free market".....not sure I could see Kendall saying something like that.)
I was reading Gnesh's (sp?) biog of George last night. In 1994 he was the Tories' official representative at the Labour Conference. He was there with his pal Danny the Fink. After hearing Blair's leadership speech they both concluded that the Tories were never going to beat him.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never. He said all the right things for his base but then made it clear that he was aspirational not only for the country but for those that wanted to get on in life as well. An unbeatable combination that left the Tories nowhere to go.
Politicians of Osborne's vintage describe him as the master, not because they necessarily agreed with his policies or his arguments but because he was truly brilliant at putting and holding together an unbeatable coalition. A master politician.
The fact that he wasted both his opportunity and talent is a tragedy for the country.
But also very much of his time. His platform of pro-europeanism, active internationalism, radical devolution, diversity and multiculturalism, pro-immigration and gender politics would not find as big an audience now.
Where he called it right (from a floating voter attractiveness point of view) was economy and growth first, public services investment a very strong second and a blue-collar toughness on crime and terrorism third.
And he didn't sound or look Labour in any way shape or form. Even when he was saying quite Labour things.
Ahhh... but were Tony Blair standing today, it would be on a platform of mild-euroscepticism, pro same law & order, plus a little bit of fiscal rectitude, all while caring for the most vulnerable in society.
You don't think Tony actually believed what he was saying, do you?
DavidL Did Wilson or Attlee talk a great talk about the market when they won? They did not win as well as Blair (bar 1945), but they won. Blair also advocated a balanced approach using a growing market to fund investment in public services, Osborne is advocating taking public spending as a percentage of gdp down to its lowest level for decades
Presumably that's because he's noticed that we're still going to be borrowing 75 billion quid this year?
Even if Mr Osborne hits all his targets (and I think he'll struggle), we'll be paying around £250 billion to service the national debt over the lifetime of this parliament. I don't think people fully appreciate how deep in the hole we are.
It's no good waving our arms around and pointing at Italy or Japan. I don't particularly care if they go under before we do.
There are 60 odd million people in the UK. How about we generously forego our minutes of silence, and Russell Brand can be quiet for the next 60 million minutes.
On topic, this is a new definition of Olympian detachment.
EU Messenger: Choose your next words carefully, Mr. Tsipras. They may be your last as Greek PM.
Alexis Tsipras: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"? [He unsheathes and points his sword at the Messenger's throat]
EU Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Alexis Tsipras: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.[referring to the well]
EU Messenger: No man, German or Greek, no man threatens a messenger!
Alexis Tsipras: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered economies to Athens' city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my people with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!
EU Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Alexis Tsipras: Madness...? This is SYRIZA! [He kicks the EU messenger down the well]
The International Monetary Fund has electrified the referendum debate in Greece after it conceded that the crisis-ridden country needs €50bn (£35bn or $55bn) of extra funds over the next three years and large-scale debt relief to create “a breathing space” and stabilise the economy.
Before the vote, I said that a refusal on action could well cause the conflict to spread to neighbouring countries. I was sadly right. Can you show me where you were similarly right about the consequences of no action?
As you might expect, I think hindsight shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.
"The notion that dramatically weakening the government of Syria would not have created a "vacuum" which they would have exploited is absurd."
The Syrian government was dramatically weakened. It was tottering, which was exactly why it took the dramatic steps it did of using chemical weapons on the outskirts of Damascus. The vacuum was already there. Further stress in the form of bombing could have had several possible effects: *) It could have made the situation worse. When you look at the current situation, it is very hard to see how. *) It might have caused the remaining pro-Assad military to overthrow him. The questions are then whether they would have unified with the FSA to fight the other groups. *) It may have caused Assad to step down, essentially ending the worst of the civil war. Free passage to Russia for him and his family might have been a good hand to play. So you have one good possibility, one bad (but no worse than we have now), and one that could have gone either way, but again no worse than we have now. You are also factually inaccurate. Firstly, the forerunners of ISIS/L were already in Syria, albeit in relatively small numbers. The warning signs were there. You also do not mention the presence of other groups such as Al Nusra and other AQ groups. Secondly, the FSA was fighting Assad. Our weakness allowed both Assad's forces and the emergent ISIS/L to essentially defeat them. You are making the mistake of so many on this thread of equating what happened without action with what would have happened with.
I agree with you Mr Jessop. And Labour played miserable petty politics with the issue
DavidL Did Wilson or Attlee talk a great talk about the market when they won? They did not win as well as Blair (bar 1945), but they won. Blair also advocated a balanced approach using a growing market to fund investment in public services, Osborne is advocating taking public spending as a percentage of gdp down to its lowest level for decades
They were both pre-Thatcher. Post Thatcher there is far more general recognition about how important the market is which is why Blair chose to sound the way he did.
Osborne is faced with the fallout of the Brown catastrophe for which Blair has to bear much of the responsibility. Under Brown public spending, both off and on balance sheet expanded consistently faster than the economy as a whole to a point that it could not be sustained even in an absurd credit boom.
We were therefore in a very dangerous place when the bubble burst and we still are. We have had 7 years of growth. Growth last year is now estimated at 3% and will probably go higher in due course. And we have a near £80bn deficit with debt still increasing as a share of GDP.
Osborne has to rebalance this. He would have done so faster in the last Parliament but he wisely recognised that the cold winds blowing from the EZ meant there were real limits on what he could do without killing growth. He still faces the same problem but time is running out on this cycle. I expect an eye wateringly tight budget next week focussed on driving the deficit down. I also expect government popularity to fall very sharply as a result which will make the outcome of the EU referendum more uncertain than it seems today.
Someone posted this video on Twitter. It's the best explanation of why Kendall looks set to bomb -- whatever Labour's "soft left" thought of Blair's policies, he had already established himself as an undeniably A-grade politician, in a way Kendall just hasn't:
(also interesting that he used the words "stop the excesses of the free market".....not sure I could see Kendall saying something like that.)
I was reading Gnesh's (sp?) biog of George last night. In 1994 he was the Tories' official representative at the Labour Conference. He was there with his pal Danny the Fink. After hearing Blair's leadership speech they both concluded that the Tories were never going to beat him.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never.
The fact that he wasted both his opportunity and talent is a tragedy for the country.
But also very much of his time. His platform of pro-europeanism, active internationalism, radical devolution, diversity and multiculturalism, pro-immigration and gender politics would not find as big an audience now.
Where he called it right (from a floating voter attractiveness point of view) was economy and growth first, public services investment a very strong second and a blue-collar toughness on crime and terrorism third.
And he didn't sound or look Labour in any way shape or form. Even when he was saying quite Labour things.
You make it sound like he actually believed in any or all of these things. Do you think he would be promoting the same package today? Of course not. That is not where the unbeatable coalition is.
That clip must make Labour supporters weep. I cannot think of anyone in front line Labour politics who could come across like that today, not even close. Do they have anyone who can even speak vaguely intelligently about the market, let alone put it in a broader context, let alone give a reasonably credible policy solution. The times I have heard Leslie speak have just made me sigh at the lack of credible alternatives.
Of course there are damn few in the Tory party either but they are one or two that are closer starting with Osborne himself who may not have anything like that natural talent but is a conscientious student.
Tony only really believed in Tony, but it was lucky for him that he could carry the Labour Party on most of those things. Much of which, on socio-cultural matters and internationalism, chimed with its sympathies anyway. Or, at least, those of its politicians.
If he were delivering that very different package today, I very much doubt he could. He struggled enough as it was with the 'centrist' stuff.
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
DavidL Brown was probably too big a beast to dispose of. I don't think polling shows a great surge of enthusiasm for the market compared to earlier decades, after all voters want higher taxes on the rich and renationalised railways and even Attlee and Wilson were not exactly Communists. Blair actually stuck to Tory spending plans in his first term and in the second spending only increased a litte, it was under Brown the taps went off. If he cuts the top tax rate too next week before a surplus is achieved that will also increase the government's unpopularity
JohnM Ending ringfencing would help Osborne meet his target a little quicker.
In the western world the notion of wage rates going up and down really hasn't existed for decades. Instead those with secure jobs have tended to let those who haven't take the strain. Hence the 25%+ unemployment rates in Spain for example. Few governments survive long by imposing major pay cuts - devaluation is so much easier, but of course not possible in the euro. Hence I think in essence my point stands. The Euro is unlikley to survive without much greater control from the centre which implies much less for the individual parts.
Labour flexibility is not simply about wage rates going up and down: it's about the ability to vary hours worked according to how busy a firm is; and it's about rules making temporary or contract working attractive.
One of the key reasons Spain has 22% unemployment is because it dramatically liberalised labour markets in the last five years. If you make it easier to fire workers in the midst of a recession, then you are inevitably going to make unemployment much, much worse.
But the consequence of this is that Spanish economy now look much more like the German economy than it used to. Spain's monthly exports have gone from c. €10bn/month a decade ago to €20bn now. It is Europe's second largest car maker, after Germany, and it no longer runs a current account deficit.
You can play the Euro game: but transitioning to a flexible, export focussed, economy is incredibly difficult. Spain and Ireland have done it. Portugal is half way there. France and Italy are so-so. Greece is largely unreformed.
Of course you are right but Spain may well have a very left-wing coalition at the end of the year as a result and the cycle will begin again. If, as I suspect, the EU essentially caves in to Greece that could be enough to give Podemos a significant boost in time for the Spanish GE. The Spanish miracle, which I have to say you are over-hyping, is sadly not impacting much on the ground here.
The International Monetary Fund has electrified the referendum debate in Greece after it conceded that the crisis-ridden country needs €50bn (£35bn or $55bn) of extra funds over the next three years and large-scale debt relief to create “a breathing space” and stabilise the economy.
Yes. Greece needs debt relief.
That is staggeringly obvious and is agreed by everyone. The draft communique that was published by Bildt about three weeks ago even mentioned it.
The issue is not whether Greece needs debt relief, but what hoops Greece is willing to jump through to get there.
The IMF report - which you've clearly not read - says that this debt relief could be largely achieved by doubling the maturity of its debt from 20 to 40 years. Which is not what Yanis wants. In fact, he's turned down two different maturity extension offers: the first a straight maturity extension, and the second where repayments are linked to Greek GDP growth. But SYRIZA wants a headline win: troika slashes Greek debt 30%!. The IMF report also says that the government has made Greek finances much less sustainable by reversing agreed reforms and halting privatisations.
I have been watching the Britain and International Security debate on the Parliament channel and once again, no female mp has made a speech, or even asked a question. NOT GOOD ENOUGH LADIES. If you want to be taken seriously, then you have to step up to the plate!
In the western world the notion of wage rates going up and down really hasn't existed for decades. Instead those with secure jobs have tended to let those who haven't take the strain. Hence the 25%+ unemployment rates in Spain for example. Few governments survive long by imposing major pay cuts - devaluation is so much easier, but of course not possible in the euro. Hence I think in essence my point stands. The Euro is unlikley to survive without much greater control from the centre which implies much less for the individual parts.
Labour flexibility is not simply about wage rates going up and down: it's about the ability to vary hours worked according to how busy a firm is; and it's about rules making temporary or contract working attractive.
One of the key reasons Spain has 22% unemployment is because it dramatically liberalised labour markets in the last five years. If you make it easier to fire workers in the midst of a recession, then you are inevitably going to make unemployment much, much worse.
But the consequence of this is that Spanish economy now look much more like the German economy than it used to. Spain's monthly exports have gone from c. €10bn/month a decade ago to €20bn now. It is Europe's second largest car maker, after Germany, and it no longer runs a current account deficit.
You can play the Euro game: but transitioning to a flexible, export focussed, economy is incredibly difficult. Spain and Ireland have done it. Portugal is half way there. France and Italy are so-so. Greece is largely unreformed.
Of course you are right but Spain may well have a very left-wing coalition at the end of the year as a result and the cycle will begin again. If, as I suspect, the EU essentially caves in to Greece that could be enough to give Podemos a significant boost in time for the Spanish GE. The Spanish miracle, which I have to say you are over-hyping, is sadly not impacting much on the ground here.
Would you like a small bet on Greece: if the vote is No, I reckon it will be followed by the de facto exit of Greece from the Eurozone.
Bet void on "yes".
Happy to allow TSE / Richard Tyndall anyone else to judge on 'cave'.
I think it will be Yes. The closure of the banks, shortages in the shops, and the complete collapse of commerce seem to be focusing minds.
It is extraordinary, but people seem to think that cash machines, bank transfers, and credit card payments operate by some immutable law of nature. I suppose in a way this is a tribute to the reliability of modern banking systems. (We saw the same thing here with the utterly bonkers suggestion from some people that Brown and Darling should have let RBS and Lloyds go bust). If it's a No, none of those things will be coming back anytime soon, since Syriza don't seem to have a Plan B.
Even assuming it is a Yes, it could still be quite a while before the banks are operating again. I'm sure the ECB and Eurogroup will try to restore credit as soon as possible, but will there be a government to negotiate with?
Why is is a bonkers suggestion?
I'm assuming he is referencing the people he though that they should be let to go bust and the government to do nothing rather than those who thought they should be let to go bust and then the government fully nationalise them.
The reason it was a bonkers suggestions is that the payment system for over a third of the country would have collapsed. People would not have been able to access their money, routine day to day bill payments and the like would not have be processed. Small businesses across the country would have gone to the wall because cheques would not clear.
The International Monetary Fund has electrified the referendum debate in Greece after it conceded that the crisis-ridden country needs €50bn (£35bn or $55bn) of extra funds over the next three years and large-scale debt relief to create “a breathing space” and stabilise the economy.
Yes. Greece needs debt relief.
That is staggeringly obvious and is agreed by everyone. The draft communique that was published by Bildt about three weeks ago even mentioned it.
The issue is not whether Greece needs debt relief, but what hoops Greece is willing to jump through to get there.
The IMF report - which you've clearly not read - says that this debt relief could be largely achieved by doubling the maturity of its debt from 20 to 40 years. Which is not what Yanis wants. In fact, he's turned down two different maturity extension offers: the first a straight maturity extension, and the second where repayments are linked to Greek GDP growth. But SYRIZA wants a headline win: troika slashes Greek debt 30%!. The IMF report also says that the government has made Greek finances much less sustainable by reversing agreed reforms and halting privatisations.
Which remarkable is exactly what the IMF says is required....
The IMF said that even if Greece is offered generous terms, it is still likely to require a reduction in debt of around 30% of national income to bring it down to 117% of GDP, the uppermost limit of what the Fund considered sustainable at the time of the second Greek bailout in the autumn of 2012.
The International Monetary Fund has electrified the referendum debate in Greece after it conceded that the crisis-ridden country needs €50bn (£35bn or $55bn) of extra funds over the next three years and large-scale debt relief to create “a breathing space” and stabilise the economy.
Yes. Greece needs debt relief.
That is staggeringly obvious and is agreed by everyone. The draft communique that was published by Bildt about three weeks ago even mentioned it.
The issue is not whether Greece needs debt relief, but what hoops Greece is willing to jump through to get there.
The IMF report - which you've clearly not read - says that this debt relief could be largely achieved by doubling the maturity of its debt from 20 to 40 years. Which is not what Yanis wants. In fact, he's turned down two different maturity extension offers: the first a straight maturity extension, and the second where repayments are linked to Greek GDP growth. But SYRIZA wants a headline win: troika slashes Greek debt 30%!. The IMF report also says that the government has made Greek finances much less sustainable by reversing agreed reforms and halting privatisations.
Which remarkable is exactly what the IMF says is required....
The IMF said that even if Greece is offered generous terms, it is still likely to require a reduction in debt of around 30% of national income to bring it down to 117% of GDP, the uppermost limit of what the Fund considered sustainable at the time of the second Greek bailout in the autumn of 2012.
Again:
The fund says this can be achieved through maturity extensions, which Greece has already been offered.
The International Monetary Fund has electrified the referendum debate in Greece after it conceded that the crisis-ridden country needs €50bn (£35bn or $55bn) of extra funds over the next three years and large-scale debt relief to create “a breathing space” and stabilise the economy.
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
RCS1000 Looking at that chart PP + Citizens could be just short of an overall majority, maybe PP +PSOE grand coalition is a possibility as a result
I think that's an entirely possible result. (I was in Madrid a few days ago, and am there again next week; the consensus among people I met was that Citizens would do extremely well in the successful cities: Barcelona, Madrid, etc.)
BBC journalists to outnumber Liberal Democrat MPs at party conference by 25 to one The number of journalists covering the LibDem conference in Bournemouth is set to be more than the 150 who reported the 2013 G8 conference in Northern Ireland
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
You forget the only thing advocates of intervention in Syria care about, Israel wants Assad gone. A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Wow - although I disapprove of Miliband's presenting of his position re the vote on Syria intervention as disingenuous at best, at the time I considered that it would only make things worse and so did not support action in Syria, but for you to claim the 'only' thing advocates of intervention care about is what Israel wants is just...wow. Blinkered doesn't begin to describe it. I'm glad I'll be working this evening and so spared what that kind of comment will provoke, intentionally no doubt.
The Guardian's spin on the IMF report is really quite funny. They present it as some sort of vindication of Syriza-nomics that the report says:
“Very significant changes in policies and in the outlook since early this year have resulted in a substantial increase in financing needs."
i.e. Syriza have trashed the economy even more badly than it was trashed before. I'm not sure this message is exactly helpful to Tsipras and Varoufakis.
It is a very unhappy situation for a country to be in that it needs to borrow more money at the same time as it has to acknowledge it can never hope to pay back what it has already and borrowed and spent.
It is hardly unreasonable for those who are being asked to provide the funds to ask what is going to be different this time, especially when they are the same people who are being asked to write off their previous advance.
The idea that a country has the right, by democratic mandate or otherwise, to insist on creditors writing off money properly due or to be lent more is completely delusional. There is no such right.
Greece has the choice of accepting the money on the terms those willing to lend it are prepared to offer or of choosing not to borrow the money. I really don't know what the Greeks think they are having a referendum on but it really is not as complicated as their government is pretending. If they choose not to take the money they must accept the consequences. Given the fearsome nature of those consequences I think they will vote to take it, even if they forget their please and thank you's.
What I thought gave Tony *star quality* was that he usually sounded very measured, not in a dull way like so many - but level headed. He didn't frighten the horses even when he said Labourish things because he made them sound quite sensible/appealing. I never had the impression he was hiding another agenda or biting his tongue back in 1996-2003ish.
As you say, there hasn't been any one with a similar set of talents like that within the Labour ranks in a very long time - if ever.
Someone posted this video on Twitter. It's the best explanation of why Kendall looks set to bomb -- whatever Labour's "soft left" thought of Blair's policies, he had already established himself as an undeniably A-grade politician, in a way Kendall just hasn't:
(also interesting that he used the words "stop the excesses of the free market".....not sure I could see Kendall saying something like that.)
I was reading Gnesh's (sp?) biog of George last night. In 1994 he was the Tories' official representative at the Labour Conference. He was there with his pal Danny the Fink. After hearing Blair's leadership speech they both concluded that the Tories were never going to beat him.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never. He said all the right things for his base but then made it clear that he was aspirational not only for the country but for those that wanted to get on in life as well. An unbeatable combination that left the Tories nowhere to go.
Politicians of Osborne's vintage describe him as the master, not because they necessarily agreed with his policies or his arguments but because he was truly brilliant at putting and holding together an unbeatable coalition. A master politician.
The fact that he wasted both his opportunity and talent is a tragedy for the country.
snip.
You make it sound like he actually believed in any or all of these things. Do you think he would be promoting the same package today? Of course not. That is not where the unbeatable coalition is.
That clip must make Labour supporters weep. I cannot think of anyone in front line Labour politics who could come across like that today, not even close. Do they have anyone who can even speak vaguely intelligently about the market, let alone put it in a broader context, let alone give a reasonably credible policy solution. The times I have heard Leslie speak have just made me sigh at the lack of credible alternatives.
Of course there are damn few in the Tory party either but they are one or two that are closer starting with Osborne himself who may not have anything like that natural talent but is a conscientious student.
The Guardian's spin on the IMF report is really quite funny. They present it as some sort of vindication of Syriza-nomics that the report says:
“Very significant changes in policies and in the outlook since early this year have resulted in a substantial increase in financing needs."
i.e. Syriza have trashed the economy even more badly than it was trashed before. I'm not sure this message is exactly helpful to Tsipras and Varoufakis.
DavidL Did Wilson or Attlee talk a great talk about the market when they won? They did not win as well as Blair (bar 1945), but they won. Blair also advocated a balanced approach using a growing market to fund investment in public services, Osborne is advocating taking public spending as a percentage of gdp down to its lowest level for decades
DavidL Brown was probably too big a beast to dispose of. I don't think polling shows a great surge of enthusiasm for the market compared to earlier decades, after all voters want higher taxes on the rich and renationalised railways and even Attlee and Wilson were not exactly Communists. Blair actually stuck to Tory spending plans in his first term and in the second spending only increased a litte, it was under Brown the taps went off. If he cuts the top tax rate too next week before a surplus is achieved that will also increase the government's unpopularity
JohnM Ending ringfencing would help Osborne meet his target a little quicker.
A couple of things:
1) Public spending is beginning to be brought under control, but the growing economy is paying for public services that we've already consumed. I.e. debt repayments 2) The Tories won an outright majority for the first time since 92 this year
Joining the two together, perhaps people want a smaller state? I'm sure you can find some crackpot poll saying 80% of people want more and 84% of people want to pay less and use that as an argument for AB being the only plausible leadership candidate. After all, doesn't everyone want to 'get on in life' - an awful neologism that only a focus-group led SPAD politician could come up with. In fact, the idea of people wanting better services but to pay less for it can only be sustained by growing the economy and reducing the state to the absolute necessary expenditure.
On a sort of related note, I'm pleased to hear that housing benefit is likely one of the areas in which the 12bn of welfare cuts are to be found. Should wipe the smile off the faces of some housing benefit landlords.
Someone posted this video on Twitter. It's the best explanation of why Kendall looks set to bomb -- whatever Labour's "soft left" thought of Blair's policies, he had already established himself as an undeniably A-grade politician, in a way Kendall just hasn't:
(also interesting that he used the words "stop the excesses of the free market".....not sure I could see Kendall saying something like that.)
I was reading Gnesh's (sp?) biog of George last night. In 1994 he was the Tories' official representative at the Labour Conference. He was there with his pal Danny the Fink. After hearing Blair's leadership speech they both concluded that the Tories were never going to beat him.
snip
But also very much of his time. His platform of pro-europeanism, active internationalism, radical devolution, diversity and multiculturalism, pro-immigration and gender politics would not find as big an audience now.
Where he called it right (from a floating voter attractiveness point of view) was economy and growth first, public services investment a very strong second and a blue-collar toughness on crime and terrorism third.
And he didn't sound or look Labour in any way shape or form. Even when he was saying quite Labour things.
You make it sound like he actually believed in any or all of these things. Do you think he would be promoting the same package today? Of course not. That is not where the unbeatable coalition is.
That clip must make Labour supporters weep. I cannot think of anyone in front line Labour politics who could come across like that today, not even close. Do they have anyone who can even speak vaguely intelligently about the market, let alone put it in a broader context, let alone give a reasonably credible policy solution. The times I have heard Leslie speak have just made me sigh at the lack of credible alternatives.
Of course there are damn few in the Tory party either but they are one or two that are closer starting with Osborne himself who may not have anything like that natural talent but is a conscientious student.
Tony only really believed in Tony, but it was lucky for him that he could carry the Labour Party on most of those things. Much of which, on socio-cultural matters and internationalism, chimed with its sympathies anyway. Or, at least, those of its politicians.
If he were delivering that very different package today, I very much doubt he could. He struggled enough as it was with the 'centrist' stuff.
BBC journalists to outnumber Liberal Democrat MPs at party conference by 25 to one The number of journalists covering the LibDem conference in Bournemouth is set to be more than the 150 who reported the 2013 G8 conference in Northern Ireland
Don't forget the overly large H of L representation:
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
BBC journalists to outnumber Liberal Democrat MPs at party conference by 25 to one The number of journalists covering the LibDem conference in Bournemouth is set to be more than the 150 who reported the 2013 G8 conference in Northern Ireland
Don't forget the overly large H of L representation:
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
@JossiasJessop Come off it. You are preventing gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
Do the Greek govt really think that the IMF are going to accept a haircut, just because they say so? Mme. Legard is the one person they desperately need on side if it all goes bang, yet they seem to want to piss her off more than anyone. Truly the party of have cake, eat cake and lose weight.
'It is a very unhappy situation for a country to be in that it needs to borrow more money at the same time as it has to acknowledge it can never hope to pay back what it has already and borrowed and spent. '
Do the Greek govt really think that the IMF are going to accept a haircut, just because they say so? Mme. Legard is the one person they desperately need on side if it all goes bang, yet they seem to want to piss her off more than anyone. Truly the party of have cake, eat cake and lose weight.
The Greek govt think that the EU should bail the Greek people out with a similar level of zeal as when the EU bailed Northern European banks out of Greek debt.
'It is a very unhappy situation for a country to be in that it needs to borrow more money at the same time as it has to acknowledge it can never hope to pay back what it has already and borrowed and spent. '
On point 2, depends what you classify as a 'smaller state' voters certainly want less spending than the 47% Brown left and closer to the 39-40% or so which is about the average rate of public spending from 1988 to 2002, however Osborne is proposing to cut spending to 35%, only 37% voted Tory despite their majority so I don't think he necessarily has a real mandate to cut it that low
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
A disintegrated state and perpetual sectarian conflict is great as far as they are concerned.
Funny, that's pretty much what Russian wants in the Ukraine.
"In Hebrew the name, hasbara, means literally “public explanation” but the expression is generally applied to anyone involved in generating pro-Israeli propaganda." according to the link... I imagine anyone on here would be insulted at that descriptor...
On point 2, depends what you classify as a 'smaller state' voters certainly want less spending than the 47% Brown left and closer to the 39-40% or so which is about the average rate of public spending for the last few decades, however Osborne is proposing to cut spending to 35%, only 37% voted Tory despite their majority so I don't think he necessarily has a real mandate to cut it that low
You don't think he necessarily has a mandate? Well that is an argument that will stop him in his tracks.
Who needs logic, precedent and constitutional settlements when you have the views of HYUFD on your side.
Check out Dustin Brown at Wimbledon.... Different class!
John McEnroe
"I have watched tennis since 1977, even before, and I have never seen a guy drop shot or drop volley as much as Dustin Brown has in these early games."
On point 2, depends what you classify as a 'smaller state' voters certainly want less spending than the 47% Brown left and closer to the 39-40% or so which is about the average rate of public spending from 1988 to 2002, however Osborne is proposing to cut spending to 35%, only 37% voted Tory despite their majority so I don't think he necessarily has a real mandate to cut it that low
'Do the Greek govt really think that the IMF are going to accept a haircut, just because they say so? Mme. Legard is the one person they desperately need on side if it all goes bang, yet they seem to want to piss her off more than anyone. Truly the party of have cake, eat cake and lose weight.'
The Greek government is running rings around the IMF, Euro Zone et al. They know they cannot be thrown out of the Euro and know they can get a much better deal with significant debt write off.
How many times did we hear that if agreement wasn't reached last Friday Greece would be thrown out of the Euro?
Or if Greece defaulted on the IMF repayment on Tuesday it would be thrown out?
Or if they voted no on Sunday they would be out of the Euro ?
Or the deal they were meant to sign last Friday was the best they were going to get and yet this weak the talks have offered debt write off.
Sunil Yes, but 5% voted SNP, 8% LD, 4% for the Greens and another 1.5% for the SDLP, PC, SF and TUSC so 48.5% voted for parties backing more spending than Osborne proposed. Even UKIP were also calling for an end to some spending cuts eg to defence and the 'bedroom tax'
How many times did we hear that if agreement wasn't reached last Friday Greece would be thrown out of the Euro?
Or if Greece defaulted on the IMF repayment on Tuesday it would be thrown out?
No-one has ever claimed they would be thrown out of the Euro. No-one is proposing to throw them out of the Euro. There is no mechanism to throw them out of the Euro.
They will, however, have no choice but to abandon the Euro, in practice if not in legal theory, if they can't pay their public-sector workers and pensioners any other way.
Mortimer Well he has a majority under FPTP in the House of Commons on his side yes, that does not mean a majority of the electorate as a whole back cutting spending right back to 35% (see below post)
Sunil Yes, but 5% voted SNP, 8% LD, 4% for the Greens and another 1.5% for the SDLP, PC, SF and TUSC so 48.5% voted for parties backing more spending than Osborne proposed. Even UKIP were also calling for an end to some spending cuts eg to defence and the 'bedroom tax'
HYUFD yes, and 50.5% voted for right-wing parties. A majority.
They will, however, have no choice but to abandon the Euro, in practice if not in legal theory, if they can't pay their public-sector workers and pensioners any other way.
I wouldn't discount them having another way up their sleeve already. Indeed it's scarcely credible that they would have pursued this course of action in quite the way they have if they didn't.
Sunil Most people who voted for UKIP did so because they were concerned about immigration and the EU, not because they wanted spending cut to 35% of GDP. As I also said even UKIP opposed further defence cuts and some cuts to housing benefit. The DUP were also calling for more spending in NI
I've got news from the opinion polls of the greek referendum. The only poll that showed YES ahead is now denied by it's pollster, the polling company GPO has denied it ever conducted that supposed poll on behalf of the BNP bank.
That means that only 2 national polls have been published both showing a NO lead by 9 and 3 points. Also a regional poll has been published showing NO with a lead of 10.5 points in the province of Achaia, I extrapolated it's findings to the national level and it's somewhere between a 2.5 YES lead and a 3.5 NO lead.
Sunil Most people who voted for UKIP did so because they were concerned about immigration and the EU, not because they wanted spending cut to 35% of GDP. As I also said even UKIP opposed further defence cuts and some cuts to housing benefit
HYUFD - the statistic still stands: 50.5% across the UK voted for right-wing parties, increasing to 55.0% in England.
I wouldn't discount them having another way up their sleeve already. Indeed it's scarcely credible that they would have pursued this course of action in quite the way they have if they didn't.
One would certainly hope so, but I wouldn't count on it.
On point 2, depends what you classify as a 'smaller state' voters certainly want less spending than the 47% Brown left and closer to the 39-40% or so which is about the average rate of public spending for the last few decades, however Osborne is proposing to cut spending to 35%, only 37% voted Tory despite their majority so I don't think he necessarily has a real mandate to cut it that low
You don't think he necessarily has a mandate? Well that is an argument that will stop him in his tracks.
Who needs logic, precedent and constitutional settlements when you have the views of HYUFD on your side.
35% is around the level we had in 1989, which, as we all remember was a time when...er...nothing particularly bad happened.
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#United_States
And the previous doctrine:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_for_Joint_Nuclear_Operations
Basically, the US still reserves the right to use chemical weapons against states that use biological weapons against them, under certain circumstances.
Hasbara troll.
"Emotionally incontinent armchair warmongering"
Grow up.
Not just in the 1997 election (which already looked a forgone conclusion) but never. He said all the right things for his base but then made it clear that he was aspirational not only for the country but for those that wanted to get on in life as well. An unbeatable combination that left the Tories nowhere to go.
Politicians of Osborne's vintage describe him as the master, not because they necessarily agreed with his policies or his arguments but because he was truly brilliant at putting and holding together an unbeatable coalition. A master politician.
The fact that he wasted both his opportunity and talent is a tragedy for the country.
Come off it. You are presenting gross simplifications as if they are facts. Of course, the conflict in Syria was liable to spread beyond that country, because each side in 2013 was being supported by other regional powers: Assad by Iran and Lebanon, the opposition to him by Gulf States, Turkey and various Western governments. It did not take a genius to work that out. Did you or anyone else on here foresee in August 2013 that just nine months later, a radical Sunni group would invade Iraq, and to a limited extent unite most of the external forces in a military campaign against it? I think not. This merely illustrates the difficulties of intervening in a region which we little understand.
Nor can any confidence be had in claims that Assad was on the verge on falling in August 2013. They were repeatedly made (remember the then Secretary of State, William Hague's repeated claims Assad was "doomed"?), both before and after the use of chemical weapons, and thus far have been wrong on each occasion. One must not present one side's propaganda about the progress of a civil war as the facts.
What I argued in August 2013 was that the use of chemical weapons on a minor scale was not causus belli, and that the consequences of intervention had not been thought through. The notion that Assad's departure is either an end in itself or a solution to a manifestation of a sectarian conflict older than that between Protestants and Romanists is again tenuous.
Where he called it right (from a floating voter attractiveness point of view) was economy and growth first, public services investment a very strong second and a blue-collar toughness on crime and terrorism third.
And he didn't sound or look Labour in any way shape or form. Even when he was saying quite Labour things.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/09/17/in-public-shift-israel-calls-for-assads-fall/
Try again.
"Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN and has now disposed of all its chemical weapons as confirmed by the OPCW."
I think you've missed declared out of that sentence.
"Assad didn't use chemical weapons as confirmed by the UN"
Go on. Make us laugh. You are aware that the OPCW were not allowed to apportion blame for their use?
And you might like to read this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11594763/UN-inspectors-find-undeclared-sarin-linked-chemicals-at-Syrian-military-site.html
You don't think Tony actually believed what he was saying, do you?
How much does the Israeli government pay you?
https://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/07/un-sarin-investigator-voices-doubts/
The only facts we have is that we now have a much bigger mess that directly threatens us and our interests. It could have been avoided.
Actually, I believe I did say that Iraq was threatened as well; although my main point was wrt Jordan, Turkey and Israel. Would have to go back and check, though.
That clip must make Labour supporters weep. I cannot think of anyone in front line Labour politics who could come across like that today, not even close. Do they have anyone who can even speak vaguely intelligently about the market, let alone put it in a broader context, let alone give a reasonably credible policy solution. The times I have heard Leslie speak have just made me sigh at the lack of credible alternatives.
Of course there are damn few in the Tory party either but they are one or two that are closer starting with Osborne himself who may not have anything like that natural talent but is a conscientious student.
A Blair who had had the courage to get rid of Brown by 2001 and not wasted his energy on international disasters could have given us affordable public services for the next 50 years.
EV4EL coming to a parliament near you soon...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33351688
One of the key reasons Spain has 22% unemployment is because it dramatically liberalised labour markets in the last five years. If you make it easier to fire workers in the midst of a recession, then you are inevitably going to make unemployment much, much worse.
But the consequence of this is that Spanish economy now look much more like the German economy than it used to. Spain's monthly exports have gone from c. €10bn/month a decade ago to €20bn now. It is Europe's second largest car maker, after Germany, and it no longer runs a current account deficit.
You can play the Euro game: but transitioning to a flexible, export focussed, economy is incredibly difficult. Spain and Ireland have done it. Portugal is half way there. France and Italy are so-so. Greece is largely unreformed.
If you look at the OECD data on labour market flexibility (http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/oecdindicatorsofemploymentprotection.htm), you see that countries that had high levels of flexibility have done relatively well in the last eight years. Those with low levels have done very poorly.
Even if Mr Osborne hits all his targets (and I think he'll struggle), we'll be paying around £250 billion to service the national debt over the lifetime of this parliament. I don't think people fully appreciate how deep in the hole we are.
It's no good waving our arms around and pointing at Italy or Japan. I don't particularly care if they go under before we do.
http://www.itv.com/news/2015-07-02/russell-brand-calls-minutes-silence-for-tunisia-total-bullsh-t/
Alexis Tsipras: [to himself: thinking] "Earth and water"?
[He unsheathes and points his sword at the Messenger's throat]
EU Messenger: Madman! You're a madman!
Alexis Tsipras: Earth and water? You'll find plenty of both down there.[referring to the well]
EU Messenger: No man, German or Greek, no man threatens a messenger!
Alexis Tsipras: You bring the ashes and ruins of conquered economies to Athens' city steps. You insult my wife. You threaten my people with slavery and death! Oh, I've chosen my words carefully, Bankster. Perhaps you should have done the same!
EU Messenger: This is blasphemy! This is madness!
Alexis Tsipras: Madness...? This is SYRIZA!
[He kicks the EU messenger down the well]
Finally the IMF admit that everything Yanis is saying is true
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/02/imf-greece-needs-extra-50bn-euros
Osborne is faced with the fallout of the Brown catastrophe for which Blair has to bear much of the responsibility. Under Brown public spending, both off and on balance sheet expanded consistently faster than the economy as a whole to a point that it could not be sustained even in an absurd credit boom.
We were therefore in a very dangerous place when the bubble burst and we still are. We have had 7 years of growth. Growth last year is now estimated at 3% and will probably go higher in due course. And we have a near £80bn deficit with debt still increasing as a share of GDP.
Osborne has to rebalance this. He would have done so faster in the last Parliament but he wisely recognised that the cold winds blowing from the EZ meant there were real limits on what he could do without killing growth. He still faces the same problem but time is running out on this cycle. I expect an eye wateringly tight budget next week focussed on driving the deficit down. I also expect government popularity to fall very sharply as a result which will make the outcome of the EU referendum more uncertain than it seems today.
If he were delivering that very different package today, I very much doubt he could. He struggled enough as it was with the 'centrist' stuff.
In what sense my dear Hasbara troll?
Is it not the neocons in the West undermining the Minsk peace agreement?
http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/neocons-triumphant-in-washington-and-geneva/
JohnM Ending ringfencing would help Osborne meet his target a little quicker.
Yes. Greece needs debt relief.
That is staggeringly obvious and is agreed by everyone. The draft communique that was published by Bildt about three weeks ago even mentioned it.
The issue is not whether Greece needs debt relief, but what hoops Greece is willing to jump through to get there.
The IMF report - which you've clearly not read - says that this debt relief could be largely achieved by doubling the maturity of its debt from 20 to 40 years. Which is not what Yanis wants. In fact, he's turned down two different maturity extension offers: the first a straight maturity extension, and the second where repayments are linked to Greek GDP growth. But SYRIZA wants a headline win: troika slashes Greek debt 30%!. The IMF report also says that the government has made Greek finances much less sustainable by reversing agreed reforms and halting privatisations.
Bet void on "yes".
Happy to allow TSE / Richard Tyndall anyone else to judge on 'cave'.
£25?
Re Spain: worth noting that Podemos is down at 12.5% in the latest NC opinion poll last week (http://www.larazon.es/documents/10165/0/video_content_3291575_20150629012111.pdf) half the level of the start of this year.
PP + Citizens should win the election by a fairly comfortable margin, I would have thought.
The reason it was a bonkers suggestions is that the payment system for over a third of the country would have collapsed. People would not have been able to access their money, routine day to day bill payments and the like would not have be processed. Small businesses across the country would have gone to the wall because cheques would not clear.
That is staggeringly obvious and is agreed by everyone. The draft communique that was published by Bildt about three weeks ago even mentioned it.
The issue is not whether Greece needs debt relief, but what hoops Greece is willing to jump through to get there.
The IMF report - which you've clearly not read - says that this debt relief could be largely achieved by doubling the maturity of its debt from 20 to 40 years. Which is not what Yanis wants. In fact, he's turned down two different maturity extension offers: the first a straight maturity extension, and the second where repayments are linked to Greek GDP growth. But SYRIZA wants a headline win: troika slashes Greek debt 30%!. The IMF report also says that the government has made Greek finances much less sustainable by reversing agreed reforms and halting privatisations.
Which remarkable is exactly what the IMF says is required....
The IMF said that even if Greece is offered generous terms, it is still likely to require a reduction in debt of around 30% of national income to bring it down to 117% of GDP, the uppermost limit of what the Fund considered sustainable at the time of the second Greek bailout in the autumn of 2012.
The IMF said that even if Greece is offered generous terms, it is still likely to require a reduction in debt of around 30% of national income to bring it down to 117% of GDP, the uppermost limit of what the Fund considered sustainable at the time of the second Greek bailout in the autumn of 2012.
Again:
The fund says this can be achieved through maturity extensions, which Greece has already been offered.
Yanis Varoufakis: My arm!!
Spartan: It's not yours any more!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTWpWofcRrs
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-33360041
“Very significant changes in policies and in the outlook since early this year have resulted in a substantial increase in financing needs."
i.e. Syriza have trashed the economy even more badly than it was trashed before. I'm not sure this message is exactly helpful to Tsipras and Varoufakis.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/02/imf-greece-needs-extra-50bn-euros
It is hardly unreasonable for those who are being asked to provide the funds to ask what is going to be different this time, especially when they are the same people who are being asked to write off their previous advance.
The idea that a country has the right, by democratic mandate or otherwise, to insist on creditors writing off money properly due or to be lent more is completely delusional. There is no such right.
Greece has the choice of accepting the money on the terms those willing to lend it are prepared to offer or of choosing not to borrow the money. I really don't know what the Greeks think they are having a referendum on but it really is not as complicated as their government is pretending. If they choose not to take the money they must accept the consequences. Given the fearsome nature of those consequences I think they will vote to take it, even if they forget their please and thank you's.
http://www.thelocal.se/20150702/shock-as-sweden-slashes-interest-rates-again
As you say, there hasn't been any one with a similar set of talents like that within the Labour ranks in a very long time - if ever.
Tsipras: IT'S AN HONOUR TO HAVE LIVED AT YOURS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQrEFN77qtI
1) Public spending is beginning to be brought under control, but the growing economy is paying for public services that we've already consumed. I.e. debt repayments
2) The Tories won an outright majority for the first time since 92 this year
Joining the two together, perhaps people want a smaller state? I'm sure you can find some crackpot poll saying 80% of people want more and 84% of people want to pay less and use that as an argument for AB being the only plausible leadership candidate. After all, doesn't everyone want to 'get on in life' - an awful neologism that only a focus-group led SPAD politician could come up with. In fact, the idea of people wanting better services but to pay less for it can only be sustained by growing the economy and reducing the state to the absolute necessary expenditure.
On a sort of related note, I'm pleased to hear that housing benefit is likely one of the areas in which the 12bn of welfare cuts are to be found. Should wipe the smile off the faces of some housing benefit landlords.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/should-we-sack-60-of-our-own-peers-46576.html
I wonder what H of L reform will get discussed at conf - the irony of it.
http://www.libdemvoice.org/should-we-sack-60-of-our-own-peers-46576.html
I wonder what H of L reform will get discussed at conf - the irony of it.
Nice smearing.
'It is a very unhappy situation for a country to be in that it needs to borrow more money at the same time as it has to acknowledge it can never hope to pay back what it has already and borrowed and spent. '
How long before German taxpayers say stop ?
And they might just get their wish....
'It is a very unhappy situation for a country to be in that it needs to borrow more money at the same time as it has to acknowledge it can never hope to pay back what it has already and borrowed and spent. '
How long before German taxpayers say stop ?
On point 1 Agreed
On point 2, depends what you classify as a 'smaller state' voters certainly want less spending than the 47% Brown left and closer to the 39-40% or so which is about the average rate of public spending from 1988 to 2002, however Osborne is proposing to cut spending to 35%, only 37% voted Tory despite their majority so I don't think he necessarily has a real mandate to cut it that low
Who needs logic, precedent and constitutional settlements when you have the views of HYUFD on your side.
John McEnroe
"I have watched tennis since 1977, even before, and I have never seen a guy drop shot or drop volley as much as Dustin Brown has in these early games."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/tennis/32625327
'Do the Greek govt really think that the IMF are going to accept a haircut, just because they say so? Mme. Legard is the one person they desperately need on side if it all goes bang, yet they seem to want to piss her off more than anyone. Truly the party of have cake, eat cake and lose weight.'
The Greek government is running rings around the IMF, Euro Zone et al.
They know they cannot be thrown out of the Euro and know they can get a much better deal with significant debt write off.
How many times did we hear that if agreement wasn't reached last Friday Greece would be thrown out of the Euro?
Or if Greece defaulted on the IMF repayment on Tuesday it would be thrown out?
Or if they voted no on Sunday they would be out of the Euro ?
Or the deal they were meant to sign last Friday was the best they were going to get and yet this weak the talks have offered debt write off.
They will, however, have no choice but to abandon the Euro, in practice if not in legal theory, if they can't pay their public-sector workers and pensioners any other way.
The only poll that showed YES ahead is now denied by it's pollster, the polling company GPO has denied it ever conducted that supposed poll on behalf of the BNP bank.
That means that only 2 national polls have been published both showing a NO lead by 9 and 3 points.
Also a regional poll has been published showing NO with a lead of 10.5 points in the province of Achaia, I extrapolated it's findings to the national level and it's somewhere between a 2.5 YES lead and a 3.5 NO lead.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/600282994524463104
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/600283502966345729
Dustin Brown: 3.55
Rafael Nadal 1.37
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/tennis/event?id=27478919