Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
Not just German holiday makers. Doesn't it increase VAT on restaurant meals thus hurting the tourism industry at a time when Greece needs those revenues? Greece may still be cheaper than other countries, I don't know. But it does seem a perverse way to get a country growing again, hurting its main source of revenue.
Greece is being described as a corrupt and incompetent country, which may well be true. This is not news, however, and was known - or should have been - well before it joined the euro.
But let's look at who is saying this:-
1. Italy: Corruption is a way of life in Italy from top to bottom. Virtually every government from the end of WW2 onwards was corrupt and this has continued to this day. In Italy's case, that corruption extended to helping the Mafia or turning a blind eye to it - see Andreotti. The consequences of such corruption have extended far beyond Italy's borders. No-one sane would describe any of Italy's governments as competent.
2. France: a country described as being like Italy but without Italy's magistrates. A number of very senior politicians, including Presidents have been accused or charged with corruption. Not quite as full of clean hands as some might like to make out.
3. Spain: it too has had significant issues with corruption in public life, including the Socialist party which governed it for many years and, I gather, the parties of the right.
4. Belgium: oh dear! Weren't there issues with defence contracts, Augusta and politicians accepting envelopes full of cash?
5. Germany: probably not corrupt but not a country with a glorious history of paying all its debts either.
"Beams" and "motes" come to mind when listening the political morality tale coming out of Brussels this morning.
Your list does not match Transparency international very well.
But importantly: Corruption is largely an internal affair, if you can pay your international bills, but is your creditors business if you cannot.
So what if African countries are more corrupt? They're not sitting in Brussels lecturing the Greeks.
I disagree that corruption is largely an internal affair. When countries are so intertwined as they are in the EU, corruption in one country does affect others. The fact that corrupt Italian politicians have failed to take adequate action against the Mafia has affected us all. The Mafia's tentacles extend far beyond Sicily, Calabria and Campania.
The point is this: the political elite in Greece is a shower. But political elites across Europe are not that much better, frankly. The EU itself is hardly free of fraud and it's not going to win awards for transparency in relation to how it spends money. A bit of humility might be in order not just shrieking "You owe me that pound of flesh."
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
A bit of humility might be in order not just shrieking "You owe me that pound of flesh."
I am sorry, but this is silly. They are not shrieking anything. They are just trying to ensure that they are not (once again) throwing good money after bad.
Whether they will be successful in that aim remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable aim, they've got plenty of reason to doubt Greece, and it's certainly not their fault that Syriza have made things so very much worse.
It seems very likely that any direct attempt to repeal the Hunting Act would fail. There are likely to be too many rebels on the Conservative side.
The manifesto, which voters were entitled to take at its word, promised a free vote on a government bill in government time. That does not need a vote. In any event, it would be very difficult for the SNP to justify voting on a Bill to repeal the 2004 Act, even under their new definition of which votes affect Scotland.
I agree with antifrank. I've been surprised at the strength of apathy/opposition to repealing the ban amongst Conservative supporters, a strong minority of which seem happy to let sleeping hounds lie. That's very different from what I felt in the party in 2003-2005, and I don't agree, but that's where we're at - 10 years is clearly a very long time in politics.
The tactic here is to secure an SNP abstention on the amendment. There are virtually no grounds for a NO vote from them as it matches the law in Scotland, and doesn't affect Scotland. So any NO vote would be out of spite.
There are sufficient Conservative English and Welsh MPs in favour to allow it to pass otherwise, and some who might not be in favour of full repeal won't mind this or won't want to upset those that do by blocking it.
If the SNP do try and join forces with Labour to vote it down, and I think they'll fail, it will play into the government's hands on EVEL and allow them to paint them as hypocrites.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
All of it needs to be read, but here are a couple of extracts:
"Michel Sapin, the French finance minister, suggested [on Saturday night] they just “get it all out and tell one another the truth” to blow off steam. Many in the room seized the opportunity with relish.
The Finnish finance minister lashed out at the Greeks for being unable to reform for half a century, according to two participants. As recriminations flew, Euclid Tsakalotos, the Greek finance minister, was oddly subdued."
"Eventually, François Hollande, the French president who has battled to keep Greece in the fold, ushered Ms Merkel and Mr Tsipras into Mr Tusk’s office to finalise a compromise on the privatisation fund. Although they were ultimately successful, the negotiations appeared to strain the Franco-German relationship long at the heart of the European project."
" “They crucified Tsipras in there,” a senior eurozone official who had attended the summit remarked. “Crucified.” "
''making all this politically possible in Greece. ''
Always supposing it is politically possible in Greece.
This I believe is the third bailout following I don't know how many haircuts. 'harsh settlement'? Ho ho ho. All of a sudden the 'it will be kicked down the road' and 'fudge' brigade and now saying the EU are after a pound of flesh. Come on people - make your mind up.
Most of the frustrated rage this morning comes from those who still believe that the Euro will fail and saw the first member leaving in chaos. There are a lot of people who have been predicting the collapse of the Euro since before its inception and they have no doubt every hurdle will be the one that will prove them right.
They are wrong. The Euro will survive, it will continue to have substantial international influence well beyond the EU, it will continue to develop as an alternative to the dollar and it will continue to spread as smaller countries continue to join it.
Since this is so contrary to the world view of the europhobics they rant with a slightly weird combination of anti German rhetoric (even in support of a government that would make Ed look like Thatcher) and accusations of fudge, totally ignoring the very clear determination of the members of the EZ to stay together, whatever the cost.
There are, in fairness, also some on the left who hate the idea that governments can spend without consequence has once again been demonstrated to be lunatic. But they are a relatively small minority. Disordered though their thinking is, at least they care tuppance about the consequences for the people of Greece.
If the euro is going to succeed then all the countries in it need to understand the full implications. And those implications go beyond simply ordering others to pay their debts. I tend to agree that the euro will survive but it is not phobic to question the "whatever the cost" aspect of this. That cost - that human cost - is being borne by those least able to bear it.
There is something chilling about those determined to impose a system in order to achieve some higher goal regardless of the human cost borne by others.
The other point some might make is that when we have this degree of mess in Europe, at some level the euro has been, if not a failure, hardly a stunning success. Maybe these times are part of its teenage years. But still. It wasn't supposed to be like this, was it?
It seems very likely that any direct attempt to repeal the Hunting Act would fail. There are likely to be too many rebels on the Conservative side.
The manifesto, which voters were entitled to take at its word, promised a free vote on a government bill in government time. That does not need a vote. In any event, it would be very difficult for the SNP to justify voting on a Bill to repeal the 2004 Act, even under their new definition of which votes affect Scotland.
I agree with antifrank. I've been surprised at the strength of apathy/opposition to repealing the ban amongst Conservative supporters, a strong minority of which seem happy to let sleeping hounds lie. That's very different from what I felt in the party in 2003-2005, and I don't agree, but that's where we're at - 10 years is clearly a very long time in politics.
The tactic here is to secure an SNP abstention on the amendment. There are virtually no grounds for a NO vote from them as it matches the law in Scotland, and doesn't affect Scotland. So any NO vote would be out of spite.
There are sufficient Conservative English and Welsh MPs in favour to allow it to pass otherwise, and some who might not be in favour of full repeal won't mind this or won't want to upset those that do by blocking it.
If the SNP do try and join forces with Labour to vote it down, and I think they'll fail, it will play into the government's hands on EVEL and allow them to paint them as hypocrites.
I think the opposition in Tory ranks is mixture of those who don't like fox hunting and those who think it might retoxify the party.
Not just German holiday makers. Doesn't it increase VAT on restaurant meals thus hurting the tourism industry at a time when Greece needs those revenues? Greece may still be cheaper than other countries, I don't know. But it does seem a perverse way to get a country growing again, hurting its main source of revenue.
With each bailout, the number of people in Greece who would be worse off after Grexit diminishes.
A bit of humility might be in order not just shrieking "You owe me that pound of flesh."
I am sorry, but this is silly. They are not shrieking anything. They are just trying to ensure that they are not (once again) throwing good money after bad.
Whether they will be successful in that aim remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable aim, they've got plenty of reason to doubt Greece, and it's certainly not their fault that Syriza have made things so very much worse.
The aim may be reasonable, but the demands...Rushing through emergency legislation that hands over, wholesale, national assets, placing economic policy under the control of foreign monitors? These are the terms given to a nation defeated in war, not a theoretical partner state. The politics of this are horrendous.
A bit of humility might be in order not just shrieking "You owe me that pound of flesh."
I am sorry, but this is silly. They are not shrieking anything. They are just trying to ensure that they are not (once again) throwing good money after bad.
Whether they will be successful in that aim remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable aim, they've got plenty of reason to doubt Greece, and it's certainly not their fault that Syriza have made things so very much worse.
What's silly is demanding to be paid when there is no prospect - even according to the IMF - of Greece being able to pay. I agree that they shouldn't throw good money after bad. So the obvious thing to have done would have been to say to the Greeks that voting "no" to the terms last week meant that they could not stay in the euro.
Instead of which they are now proposing to give them some more money after some reforms. Which is what the previous two bailouts said: money from us and reforms from you. Even if those reforms go through and are enforced ( the second "if" is even bigger than the first) will Greece be able to pay its debts? If not, then what the hell is the point of all this charade?
A bit of humility might be in order not just shrieking "You owe me that pound of flesh."
I am sorry, but this is silly. They are not shrieking anything. They are just trying to ensure that they are not (once again) throwing good money after bad.
Whether they will be successful in that aim remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable aim, they've got plenty of reason to doubt Greece, and it's certainly not their fault that Syriza have made things so very much worse.
The aim may be reasonable, but the demands...Rushing through emergency legislation that hands over, wholesale, national assets, placing economic policy under the control of foreign monitors? These are the terms given to a nation defeated in war, not a theoretical partner state. The politics of this are horrendous.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
A bit of humility might be in order not just shrieking "You owe me that pound of flesh."
I am sorry, but this is silly. They are not shrieking anything. They are just trying to ensure that they are not (once again) throwing good money after bad.
Whether they will be successful in that aim remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable aim, they've got plenty of reason to doubt Greece, and it's certainly not their fault that Syriza have made things so very much worse.
The aim may be reasonable, but the demands...Rushing through emergency legislation that hands over, wholesale, national assets, placing economic policy under the control of foreign monitors? These are the terms given to a nation defeated in war, not a theoretical partner state. The politics of this are horrendous.
The Greeks don't HAVE to borrow the money.
Indeed they don't. The drachma is still an option. It remains to be seen whether this will pass in Athens.
I sort of hope it doesn't. The precedent of a peacetime democracy voluntarily making itself a foreign protectorate is troubling.
It seems very likely that any direct attempt to repeal the Hunting Act would fail. There are likely to be too many rebels on the Conservative side.
The manifesto, which voters were entitled to take at its word, promised a free vote on a government bill in government time. That does not need a vote. In any event, it would be very difficult for the SNP to justify voting on a Bill to repeal the 2004 Act, even under their new definition of which votes affect Scotland.
I agree with antifrank. I've been surprised at the strength of apathy/opposition to repealing the ban amongst Conservative supporters, a strong minority of which seem happy to let sleeping hounds lie. That's very different from what I felt in the party in 2003-2005, and I don't agree, but that's where we're at - 10 years is clearly a very long time in politics.
The tactic here is to secure an SNP abstention on the amendment. There are virtually no grounds for a NO vote from them as it matches the law in Scotland, and doesn't affect Scotland. So any NO vote would be out of spite.
There are sufficient Conservative English and Welsh MPs in favour to allow it to pass otherwise, and some who might not be in favour of full repeal won't mind this or won't want to upset those that do by blocking it.
If the SNP do try and join forces with Labour to vote it down, and I think they'll fail, it will play into the government's hands on EVEL and allow them to paint them as hypocrites.
Is the whole point of the vote on hunting - the way it's been framed - simply just to try and smoke out the SNP into taking a blatantly oppositionist line against something they (as a party) agree with when in Holyrood?
Is the whole point of the vote on hunting - the way it's been framed - simply just to try and smoke out the SNP into taking a blatantly oppositionist line against something they (as a party) agree with when in Holyrood?
Wolfgang Munchau is correct. The euro as it now exists is a million miles from the utopian concept many Europeans bought into 15-20 years ago.
Rather than a genuine shared economic space - with the large-scale fiscal transfers (note: not loans) and common economic government needed to sustain it - we have an unstable and unbalanced system that can only be held together by imposing crushing conditions on lagging regions, backed up with the threat of financial suffocation.
In one sense I don't blame the Germans and their allies for doing what they have done. It is Greece which is really at fault for accepting these ridiculous terms.
But Germany's insistence that it is either exit or the reduction of a supposedly sovereign state to the status of an economic colony more or less confirms Nick Ridley's comments about EMU from long ago. The Eurozone is indeed to be run on German terms, for Germany's benefit.
It also means the system will have a grotesque deflationary bias, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and related social problems for the foreseeable future.
Is the whole point of the vote on hunting - the way it's been framed - simply just to try and smoke out the SNP into taking a blatantly oppositionist line against something they (as a party) agree with when in Holyrood?
The problem with the Treaty of Versailles was that it was too lenient, not that it was too harsh. This was because it left a defeated Germany, whose grievances were not legitimate, with the capacity to wage war. The terms of the settlement were less harsh than that Germany imposed at Brest-Litovsk. German policy had been to finance the war by taking reparations from defeated countries. The same mistake was not made after the Second World War, when Germany, albeit out of pragmatic necessity, was partitioned.
Those who cite the success of Marshall aid often neglect to mention that the Soviet Union extracted an approximately equivalent capital sum from Eastern Europe as the Americans put in the immediate aftermath of 1945. East Germany was not treated with the same forgiveness as the West. Who is to say it say the Soviets' approach was an injustice?
I don't agree with this. The Reichswehr after 1918 was reduced to 100,000 men and the Air Force was effectively abolished. If memory serves, the Treaty of Rappallo was the first diplomatic effort by the Germans to get back into European affairs and it also recognised the failure of Soviet events to advance westwards following their defeat at Warsaw in 1920.
Reparations were the main weapon of punishment and this, along with the presence of foreign troops in the Rhineland, were a daily reminder to the Germans that they had lost the war and were international pariahs.
1945 was different - the physical reality of defeat was total - every inch was occupied by foreign soldiers. It is in the interests of both Cold War sides to rebuild Germany as a viable state albeit under their political control.
What's silly is demanding to be paid when there is no prospect - even according to the IMF - of Greece being able to pay. I agree that they shouldn't throw good money after bad. So the obvious thing to have done would have been to say to the Greeks that voting "no" to the terms last week meant that they could not stay in the euro.
That's what the Germans suggested, it seems that they would have preferred Grexit (see the FT article antifrank just linked to). However, the point which everyone seems to have forgotten is that it was Greeks themselves, across most political parties and by an overwhelming majority of the population, who were desperate to stay in the Eurozone. Now, maybe they were wrong to want that, but that is what they wanted - no one was imposing the Euro on them, quite the opposite. When push came to shove, they wanted to stay in the Eurozone more than they wanted to throw off 'austerity', if that was the choice. (As it happens, I don't think that was the choice: Grexit was not going to be a pain-free option either).
On the question of whether this bailout will be any more successful than the previous ones, that remains to be seen. Perhaps the experience of the bank closures and the near-total collapse of the economy will have focused Greek minds. We shall see, but I'm actually a little bit optimistic on that: the tone of the vox pops seems to have changed.
Is the whole point of the vote on hunting - the way it's been framed - simply just to try and smoke out the SNP into taking a blatantly oppositionist line against something they (as a party) agree with when in Holyrood?
I'm sure it's entirely above board that the brother of the Chief Exec runs the ad agency that took 1/3 of Save The Childrens entire advertising spend = £729,343
A bit of humility might be in order not just shrieking "You owe me that pound of flesh."
I am sorry, but this is silly. They are not shrieking anything. They are just trying to ensure that they are not (once again) throwing good money after bad.
Whether they will be successful in that aim remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable aim, they've got plenty of reason to doubt Greece, and it's certainly not their fault that Syriza have made things so very much worse.
What's silly is demanding to be paid when there is no prospect - even according to the IMF - of Greece being able to pay. I agree that they shouldn't throw good money after bad. So the obvious thing to have done would have been to say to the Greeks that voting "no" to the terms last week meant that they could not stay in the euro.
Jean-Claude Juncker said this is what a No vote would mean in advance of the Greek referendum (and got quite a bit of flak as a result). But if the Greek government chose to ignore its mandate because it nevertheless preferred to stay in the Euro, was the EU supposed to refuse to allow it to stay?
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
''When push came to shove, they wanted to stay in the Eurozone more than they wanted to throw off 'austerity', if that was the choice.''
To be fair, Tsipras came to power offering the Greeks the Eurozone free of austerity. It was something he could never deliver. He will probably pay a big price at the ballot box.
I'm sure it's entirely above board that the brother of the Chief Exec runs the ad agency that took 1/3 of Save The Childrens entire advertising spend = £729,343
What's silly is demanding to be paid when there is no prospect - even according to the IMF - of Greece being able to pay. I agree that they shouldn't throw good money after bad. So the obvious thing to have done would have been to say to the Greeks that voting "no" to the terms last week meant that they could not stay in the euro.
That's what the Germans suggested, it seems that they would have preferred Grexit (see the FT article antifrank just linked to). However, the point which everyone seems to have forgotten is that it was Greeks themselves, across most political parties and by an overwhelming majority of the population, who were desperate to stay in the Eurozone. Now, maybe they were wrong to want that, but that is what they wanted - no one was imposing the Euro on them, quite the opposite. When push came to shove, they wanted to stay in the Eurozone more than they wanted to throw off 'austerity', if that was the choice. (As it happens, I don't think that was the choice: Grexit was not going to be a pain-free option either).
On the question of whether this bailout will be any more successful than the previous ones, that remains to be seen. Perhaps the experience of the bank closures and the near-total collapse of the economy will have focused Greek minds. We shall see, but I'm actually a little bit optimistic on that: the tone of the vox pops seems to have changed.
I would have thought the financial crisis caused by bank closures and the near total collapse of the economy will mean Greece is even less able to pay their debt than before. Unemployment will not recover, or may even get worse. The public have had their say in a referendum directly ignored. And the most prominent party opposing this carnage will be Golden Dawn.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
I'm sure it's entirely above board that the brother of the Chief Exec runs the ad agency that took 1/3 of Save The Childrens entire advertising spend = £729,343
Surveyed 13-15 May before nominations, endorsements and hustings.
No, this was taken 25th June - 2nd July, the one you are talking about is the LD Voice poll (a yougov in May also had Farron ahead).
This was a LD Newswire poll of members taken over that period weighted for gender, hustings attendance and whether members joined before or after the election. Scroll down for further details
I'm sure it's entirely above board that the brother of the Chief Exec runs the ad agency that took 1/3 of Save The Childrens entire advertising spend = £729,343
I would have thought the financial crisis caused by bank closures and the near total collapse of the economy will mean Greece is even less able to pay their debt than before. Unemployment will not recover, or may even get worse.
This is probably true. However, there was no plan B, which is no-one's fault but the Greek government's. What's more, even if there had been a plan B involving Grexit, it would still be true that unemployment would get worse, and of course those pensions which so many families depend on would have been massively devalued (remember that Greece imports half its food and virtually all of its fuel).
It is possible, perhaps even likely, that eventually Grexit would have led to a better outcome, but in the short- to medium-term it might have been even more painful. And what is certainly the case is that a chaotic and unplanned Grexit, especially one begun after months of mounting crisis and with the banking system already in meltdown, was pretty much the worst of all worlds.
I'm sure it's entirely above board that the brother of the Chief Exec runs the ad agency that took 1/3 of Save The Childrens entire advertising spend = £729,343
Anyone know off the top of their head under which department the Charity Commission operates, DCMS?
Some of these large charities are ripe for a big shakedown.
There was a R5 phone on Sunday night about aggressive charity "fund-raisers" and obviously how a lot of this is sub-contracted out where it is all based upon the 3rd party company guaranteeing x sign-ups per month. And one caller cut through the BS and said exactly that what we need to know is what are the top brass at these organisations paid, how much of the direct-debt goes to the actual cause after taking about chuggers wages, the 3rd party company, the charity staff etc.
@Peston: ECB has failed to reward @atsipras for capitulation. No increase in ELA. Banks to remain closed till at least Wednesday night #GreeceCrisis
That's huge, isn't it?
It's what you'd expect: Any money the ECB releases is going straight out of the door, and it's quite possible that the Greek parliament will kill the deal by their Wednesday deadline, so you'd expect them to wait until then to find out if the banks they'd be lending money to on Tuesday will still be operating on Thursday.
This interview with Yanis Varoufakis is astonishing!
Regardless of your opinions of the man, some of the revelations defy comprehension. A must-read for anyone interested in what's gone on behind the scenes in the Greek crisis since the beginning of the year.
I don't agree with this. The Reichswehr after 1918 was reduced to 100,000 men and the Air Force was effectively abolished. If memory serves, the Treaty of Rappallo was the first diplomatic effort by the Germans to get back into European affairs and it also recognised the failure of Soviet events to advance westwards following their defeat at Warsaw in 1920.
Reparations were the main weapon of punishment and this, along with the presence of foreign troops in the Rhineland, were a daily reminder to the Germans that they had lost the war and were international pariahs.
1945 was different - the physical reality of defeat was total - every inch was occupied by foreign soldiers. It is in the interests of both Cold War sides to rebuild Germany as a viable state albeit under their political control.
The Treaty undoubtedly left Germany with the capacity to wage war. The evidence for this is the fact that it did. The restrictions on the size of the German armed forces were worthless if other states were not willing to enforce them, which they were not. Germany did not invade Poland with an army of 100,000. Reparations were merely what Germany would have imposed on the defeated allies had it won, and were on a smaller scale. France and Belgium invaded the Ruhr when Germany defaulted on its obligations. There was nothing objectionable about reminding Germany of the fact it had lost.
The mistakes of 1918-1919 were not repeated after 1945. Firstly, Germany was occupied by foreign powers. Secondly, it was partitioned between them in the medium term. The rest is detail.
..., the point which everyone seems to have forgotten is that it was Greeks themselves, across most political parties and by an overwhelming majority of the population, who were desperate to stay in the Eurozone. Now, maybe they were wrong to want that, but that is what they wanted - no one was imposing the Euro on them, quite the opposite.
NicK P said, "I'm feeling less interested in the Con-Lab battle and more in discussing policies that will work."
I find that admission somewhat depressing. Surely every MP who represents their constituents should focus on 'what can work' and not unrealistic party ideology. Yes, good ideas can be in advance of their time, but surely all MPs should think beyond the 5 years and preferably at 15-20 years as decisions made now can take that long to show their true effect.
Sure. But political debate is 90% dominated by the party battle, as you can see here every day - what is the proprtion of pro/anti-SNP posts to posts seriously discussing the future of Scotland? Even as an MP I was a bit less partisan than most.
Well said Nick! Maybe it would be good every few decades to have a 'National Government' to sort out the "This needs doing but we need electing again afterwards" pile of stuff, to have the great minds in Parliament put aside their partisan exaggeration of small differences and look at what works best for the country.
Yes, there's something in that. in the Commons, you can get serious, constructive discussion in precisely inverse proportion to the level of publicity. In a 1-1 talk with an opposing MP you can have a really good discussion on what needs to be done. In an obscure committee it's also not bad (the European scrutiny committees were in many ways the best, apart from the Select Committees). At the other extreme you get the highly-publicised crap at PMQs.
Obviously there's scope for disagreement on fundamentals - how far should we help or dictate to people who fail to get a job, for instance, bearing in mind the range of reasons from absolutely bad luck to real skiving. But a lot of policy, like prisons or transport or care service delivery, isn't especially about fundamentals, and you get effective discussions on them - e.g. Graham Allen (Nottingham N Labour) works constructively with IDS on finding effective ways to help pre-school kids in deprived areas, because IDS is genuinely concerned and Nottingham N is by some measure the most deprived in Britain.
I sort of hope it doesn't. The precedent of a peacetime democracy voluntarily making itself a foreign protectorate is troubling.
It's not 'foreign' though, despite the way it might look at the moment. Greece is part of the EU and part of the Eurozone. In the optimistic scenario, in time they will recover and will be on an equal footing with other countries of their size.
It seems very likely that any direct attempt to repeal the Hunting Act would fail. There are likely to be too many rebels on the Conservative side.
The manifesto, which voters were entitled to take at its word, promised a free vote on a government bill in government time. That does not need a vote. In any event, it would be very difficult for the SNP to justify voting on a Bill to repeal the 2004 Act, even under their new definition of which votes affect Scotland.
I agree with antifrank. I've been surprised at the strength of apathy/opposition to repealing the ban amongst Conservative supporters, a strong minority of which seem happy to let sleeping hounds lie. That's very different from what I felt in the party in 2003-2005, and I don't agree, but that's where we're at - 10 years is clearly a very long time in politics.
The tactic here is to secure an SNP abstention on the amendment. There are virtually no grounds for a NO vote from them as it matches the law in Scotland, and doesn't affect Scotland. So any NO vote would be out of spite.
There are sufficient Conservative English and Welsh MPs in favour to allow it to pass otherwise, and some who might not be in favour of full repeal won't mind this or won't want to upset those that do by blocking it.
If the SNP do try and join forces with Labour to vote it down, and I think they'll fail, it will play into the government's hands on EVEL and allow them to paint them as hypocrites.
I think the opposition in Tory ranks is mixture of those who don't like fox hunting and those who think it might retoxify the party.
In 2004 the vast majority of Conservative party members felt strongly it was an ignorant and bad law being forced through by abusing Labour's vast parliamentary majority - a sop to the Labour left and special interest groups. This was in spite of the better judgement of the Burns inquiry and government at the time but it passed, with tacit acceptance by Blair, because he was too weakened post Iraq to influence the free vote significantly. The law that was passed was much stricter than Scotland.
Had the Conservatives won outright a GB called election in 2007 (a big ask) then I think it would have been repealed outright. But, given the passage of time and failure to continuously campaign on the futility of the law, the latter has now taken over as the prejudices of foxhunting's opponents are now clearly established in the public's mind.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
Mike Smithson @MSmithsonPB · 2m2 minutes ago Andy Burnham seeking to enthuse the audience, including the man behind, in the BBC2 LAB leadership debate.
It seems very likely that any direct attempt to repeal the Hunting Act would fail. There are likely to be too many rebels on the Conservative side.
The manifesto, which voters were entitled to take at its word, promised a free vote on a government bill in government time. That does not need a vote. In any event, it would be very difficult for the SNP to justify voting on a Bill to repeal the 2004 Act, even under their new definition of which votes affect Scotland.
I agree with antifrank. I've been surprised at the strength of apathy/opposition to repealing the ban amongst Conservative supporters, a strong minority of which seem happy to let sleeping hounds lie. That's very different from what I felt in the party in 2003-2005, and I don't agree, but that's where we're at - 10 years is clearly a very long time in politics.
The tactic here is to secure an SNP abstention on the amendment. There are virtually no grounds for a NO vote from them as it matches the law in Scotland, and doesn't affect Scotland. So any NO vote would be out of spite.
There are sufficient Conservative English and Welsh MPs in favour to allow it to pass otherwise, and some who might not be in favour of full repeal won't mind this or won't want to upset those that do by blocking it.
If the SNP do try and join forces with Labour to vote it down, and I think they'll fail, it will play into the government's hands on EVEL and allow them to paint them as hypocrites.
I think the opposition in Tory ranks is mixture of those who don't like fox hunting and those who think it might retoxify the party.
In 2004 the vast majority of Conservative party members felt strongly it was an ignorant and bad law being forced through by abusing Labour's vast parliamentary majority as a sop to the Labour left and special interest groups. This was in spite of the better judgement of the Burns inquiry and government at the time but it passed, with tacit acceptance by Blair, because he needed a major sop to his party. Particularly when he was weakened post Iraq. The law that was passed was much stricter than Scotland.
Had the Conservatives won outright a GB called election in 2007 (a big ask) then I think it would have been repealed outright. But, given the passage of time and failure to continuously campaign on the futility of the law, the latter has now taken over as the prejudices of foxhunting's opponents are now clearly established in the public's mind.
This is probably the best that can be hoped for.
I used to be anti fox hunting then I was invited to attend a fox hunt by a pro hunting friend.
The point about occupation of Germany after WWI is critical, and has a strange resonance with Greece today.
What the interwar period showed was that it is very hard indeed to get heavy debt repayments out of a country if that country is determined to resist paying and happy to commit economic self-harm in the process. Only through occupation and administration of a given country in the interests of its creditors, or through the effective seizure of assets, can you be sure of getting the money.
After WWI Germany could and should have been occupied for 10-15 years to allow the Allies to extract their perfectly justified reparations.
This logic is now being turned on Greece. Its finances are now going to be largely run by its creditors, with a massive effective asset seizure as collateral. I think most people might agree Greece is less deserving of this kind of treatment than Germany after WWI though.
Well said Nick! Maybe it would be good every few decades to have a 'National Government' to sort out the "This needs doing but we need electing again afterwards" pile of stuff, to have the great minds in Parliament put aside their partisan exaggeration of small differences and look at what works best for the country.
Yes, there's something in that. in the Commons, you can get serious, constructive discussion in precisely inverse proportion to the level of publicity. In a 1-1 talk with an opposing MP you can have a really good discussion on what needs to be done. In an obscure committee it's also not bad (the European scrutiny committees were in many ways the best, apart from the Select Committees). At the other extreme you get the highly-publicised crap at PMQs.
Obviously there's scope for disagreement on fundamentals - how far should we help or dictate to people who fail to get a job, for instance, bearing in mind the range of reasons from absolutely bad luck to real skiving. But a lot of policy, like prisons or transport or care service delivery, isn't especially about fundamentals, and you get effective discussions on them - e.g. Graham Allen (Nottingham N Labour) works constructively with IDS on finding effective ways to help pre-school kids in deprived areas, because IDS is genuinely concerned and Nottingham N is by some measure the most deprived in Britain.
Great comments, thanks Nick. Got to run now but these conversations are what makes PB great
The Versaille Treaty was unduly harsh, well out of historical norms, and ultimately unenforceable. It guaranteed that another war would erupt in Europe, not just due to the unjust reparations, but especially as it denied self determination to ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland and Danzig who would inevitably look for their freedom.
Unfortunately in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union we made the same mistake and denied the fundamental need people have to govern themselves. The EU is another retrograde step in this direction.
What's silly is demanding to be paid when there is no prospect - even according to the IMF - of Greece being able to pay. I agree that they shouldn't throw good money after bad. So the obvious thing to have done would have been to say to the Greeks that voting "no" to the terms last week meant that they could not stay in the euro.
That's what the Germans suggested, it seems that they would have preferred Grexit (see the FT article antifrank just linked to). However, the point which everyone seems to have forgotten is that it was Greeks themselves, across most political parties and by an overwhelming majority of the population, who were desperate to stay in the Eurozone. Now, maybe they were wrong to want that, but that is what they wanted - no one was imposing the Euro on them, quite the opposite. When push came to shove, they wanted to stay in the Eurozone more than they wanted to throw off 'austerity', if that was the choice. (As it happens, I don't think that was the choice: Grexit was not going to be a pain-free option either).
On the question of whether this bailout will be any more successful than the previous ones, that remains to be seen. Perhaps the experience of the bank closures and the near-total collapse of the economy will have focused Greek minds. We shall see, but I'm actually a little bit optimistic on that: the tone of the vox pops seems to have changed.
I think you are being very optimistic. I doubt that Greece will ever pay off the money it has been given in the last two bailouts let alone in this one.
The Greeks are the authors (along with others) the author of their own misfortune. They want the euro without any of the responsibilities that the euro brings.
What is now resulting is what happens when all sides want impossible and incompatible outcomes. I expect there will be more Greek crises to come.
For instance, why would border control staff bother to enforce any of the rules on migrants/asylum seekers if their pension and wages have been cut in half. Cue - more migrants including, no doubt, a lot of Islamist undesirables, entering Europe via Greece. Cue more wailing.
It would have been better not to have started from here, of course. But there we are: the europhiles are getting what they wanted.......
I'm sure it's entirely above board that the brother of the Chief Exec runs the ad agency that took 1/3 of Save The Childrens entire advertising spend = £729,343
Anyone know off the top of their head under which department the Charity Commission operates, DCMS?
Some of these large charities are ripe for a big shakedown.
There was a R5 phone on Sunday night about aggressive charity "fund-raisers" and obviously how a lot of this is sub-contracted out where it is all based upon the 3rd party company guaranteeing x sign-ups per month. And one caller cut through the BS and said exactly that what we need to know is what are the top brass at these organisations paid, how much of the direct-debt goes to the actual cause after taking about chuggers wages, the 3rd party company, the charity staff etc.
Things have changed a lot from 18 years ago when I was on the uni RAG team - we were out shaking tins voluntarily every weekend in one town or another to raise a few hundred quid for a bunch of charities local and national. RAGs got pretty much forced out of the high streets by these paid chuggers only a few years later.
It used to be that the big charities were staffed by recent graduates happy to work for a couple of years at low wages in their early 20s, a few semi retired and middle-class non-working wives. Maybe a small group of paid execs running the national show on monest incomes.
Nowadays we see charities with 'Communications Director" and "Political Director" roles paying six figure salaries, while the amount of charitable work done seems to decline in favour of lobbying government.
Most of the frustrated rage this morning comes from those who still believe that the Euro will fail and saw the first member leaving in chaos. There are a lot of people who have been predicting the collapse of the Euro since before its inception and they have no doubt every hurdle will be the one that will prove them right.
They are wrong. The Euro will survive, it will continue to have substantial international influence well beyond the EU, it will continue to develop as an alternative to the dollar and it will continue to spread as smaller countries continue to join it.
Since this is so contrary to the world view of the europhobics they rant with a slightly weird combination of anti German rhetoric (even in support of a government that would make Ed look like Thatcher) and accusations of fudge, totally ignoring the very clear determination of the members of the EZ to stay together, whatever the cost.
There are, in fairness, also some on the left who hate the idea that governments can spend without consequence has once again been demonstrated to be lunatic. But they are a relatively small minority. Disordered though their thinking is, at least they care tuppance about the consequences for the people of Greece.
If you read the likes of Wolfgang Munchau, you will see that the people most raging are those economic centrists who believe passionately in the European project. They know what a damning mess this whole thing is. The deal last night is merely the acceleration of the flawed policies that got us to this point. The dollar that is supposedly being replaced has strengthened by 20% against the euro in the last month. The euro also caused tens of millions to be out of work on a semi-permanent basis. No-one needs to wish for the euro to fail. It's already happened.
The sentences imposed for fraud infuriate me. They are far too low. He gets five years. Adoboli who was responsible for Britain's biggest fraud - £2.3 billion in 2011 - gets 7 years. The maximum sentence is 10 years. If Britain's biggest fraud is not worth a 10-year sentence what the hell will be?
Fraud is serious not because of the loss of money, bad as that is but because it corrodes and destroys trust. And without trust how can you have banking, how can you have good administration, how can you have a worthwhile political system?
Is there a decent source of stats on jail terms for non-violent burglaries, I would like to compare and contrast.
I think the opposition in Tory ranks is mixture of those who don't like fox hunting and those who think it might retoxify the party.
In 2004 the vast majority of Conservative party members felt strongly it was an ignorant and bad law being forced through by abusing Labour's vast parliamentary majority - a sop to the Labour left and special interest groups. This was in spite of the better judgement of the Burns inquiry and government at the time but it passed, with tacit acceptance by Blair, because he was too weakened post Iraq to influence the free vote significantly. The law that was passed was much stricter than Scotland.
Had the Conservatives won outright a GB called election in 2007 (a big ask) then I think it would have been repealed outright. But, given the passage of time and failure to continuously campaign on the futility of the law, the latter has now taken over as the prejudices of foxhunting's opponents are now clearly established in the public's mind.
This is probably the best that can be hoped for.
Without refighting the argument here, those of us with a particular interest felt that Burns offered a fudge. Opinion was polarised after the endless delaying tactics used by opponents in both houses - people who liked hunting felt that this was heroic resistance, people opposed felt that it was anti-democratic frustration of a clear majority. Ironically, later on the delays were used as anti-ban argument ("Why did they spend so much time on it?"). The reverse will be true now if the semi-reversal is passed - it'll be debated in both houses for years.
As someone with a general interest in animal welfare issues, I did feel it was a pity that the whole area got bogged down in this particular trench war, while areas affecting far more animals got neglected. It was partly with that in mind that I took a job working on the animal experiments issue after I lost my seat.
But I think the Tories will be nuts if they reopen the issue, all the same.
There was a fascinating and quite gruesome doc on BBC4 a month or so back called The Savage Peace - about the reprisals on German civilians after WW2 ended. Apparently it was routine to rape and GBH any Germans the local populace found and 500k were murdered.
stodge said "History tells us humiliating nations rarely ends well for all concerned. Yes, the Greeks have made mistakes but they were far from being the only culpable party in all this. "
Yep. By spontaneous free association the following words sprand into my mind: "WW1, reparations, inflation, facism, WW2."
I saw that. Quite gruesome. There have been some good books on the what happened in the months and years after the war ended and the fighting/civil wars/reprisals and other stuff which happened even though the war had officially ended.
If you sow hatred, you reap it for years after. The Germans learnt that in 1945.
A lesson worth all of us learning.
I have just been watching the complete set of the re-worked The World at War made by Jeremy Isaacs and narrated by Laurence Olivier. There were several references to the treatment of the defeated enemy and local collaborators with contemporary film recordings. Some are well-known but others less so - for example in the Philippines. What an excellent programme that was with some wonderful contributing writers.
Comments
I disagree that corruption is largely an internal affair. When countries are so intertwined as they are in the EU, corruption in one country does affect others. The fact that corrupt Italian politicians have failed to take adequate action against the Mafia has affected us all. The Mafia's tentacles extend far beyond Sicily, Calabria and Campania.
The point is this: the political elite in Greece is a shower. But political elites across Europe are not that much better, frankly. The EU itself is hardly free of fraud and it's not going to win awards for transparency in relation to how it spends money. A bit of humility might be in order not just shrieking "You owe me that pound of flesh."
Is a work in progress but I'm happy.
Whether they will be successful in that aim remains to be seen, but it's a perfectly reasonable aim, they've got plenty of reason to doubt Greece, and it's certainly not their fault that Syriza have made things so very much worse.
The tactic here is to secure an SNP abstention on the amendment. There are virtually no grounds for a NO vote from them as it matches the law in Scotland, and doesn't affect Scotland. So any NO vote would be out of spite.
There are sufficient Conservative English and Welsh MPs in favour to allow it to pass otherwise, and some who might not be in favour of full repeal won't mind this or won't want to upset those that do by blocking it.
If the SNP do try and join forces with Labour to vote it down, and I think they'll fail, it will play into the government's hands on EVEL and allow them to paint them as hypocrites.
Repeating past mistakes is the action of fools..
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f908e534-2942-11e5-8db8-c033edba8a6e.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz3flPmwY5I
All of it needs to be read, but here are a couple of extracts:
"Michel Sapin, the French finance minister, suggested [on Saturday night] they just “get it all out and tell one another the truth” to blow off steam. Many in the room seized the opportunity with relish.
The Finnish finance minister lashed out at the Greeks for being unable to reform for half a century, according to two participants. As recriminations flew, Euclid Tsakalotos, the Greek finance minister, was oddly subdued."
"Eventually, François Hollande, the French president who has battled to keep Greece in the fold, ushered Ms Merkel and Mr Tsipras into Mr Tusk’s office to finalise a compromise on the privatisation fund. Although they were ultimately successful, the negotiations appeared to strain the Franco-German relationship long at the heart of the European project."
" “They crucified Tsipras in there,” a senior eurozone official who had attended the summit remarked. “Crucified.” "
There is something chilling about those determined to impose a system in order to achieve some higher goal regardless of the human cost borne by others.
The other point some might make is that when we have this degree of mess in Europe, at some level the euro has been, if not a failure, hardly a stunning success. Maybe these times are part of its teenage years. But still. It wasn't supposed to be like this, was it?
Anyone under 40 should vote drachma.
Instead of which they are now proposing to give them some more money after some reforms. Which is what the previous two bailouts said: money from us and reforms from you. Even if those reforms go through and are enforced ( the second "if" is even bigger than the first) will Greece be able to pay its debts? If not, then what the hell is the point of all this charade?
I sort of hope it doesn't. The precedent of a peacetime democracy voluntarily making itself a foreign protectorate is troubling.
Rather than a genuine shared economic space - with the large-scale fiscal transfers (note: not loans) and common economic government needed to sustain it - we have an unstable and unbalanced system that can only be held together by imposing crushing conditions on lagging regions, backed up with the threat of financial suffocation.
In one sense I don't blame the Germans and their allies for doing what they have done. It is Greece which is really at fault for accepting these ridiculous terms.
But Germany's insistence that it is either exit or the reduction of a supposedly sovereign state to the status of an economic colony more or less confirms Nick Ridley's comments about EMU from long ago. The Eurozone is indeed to be run on German terms, for Germany's benefit.
It also means the system will have a grotesque deflationary bias, leading to unnecessarily high unemployment and related social problems for the foreseeable future.
My reading is that a party advocating Grexit, the return of the drachma and self rule wouldn't get off the starting grid in that country.
People there like the euro more than they want a return to the old days.
Reparations were the main weapon of punishment and this, along with the presence of foreign troops in the Rhineland, were a daily reminder to the Germans that they had lost the war and were international pariahs.
1945 was different - the physical reality of defeat was total - every inch was occupied by foreign soldiers. It is in the interests of both Cold War sides to rebuild Germany as a viable state albeit under their political control.
On the question of whether this bailout will be any more successful than the previous ones, that remains to be seen. Perhaps the experience of the bank closures and the near-total collapse of the economy will have focused Greek minds. We shall see, but I'm actually a little bit optimistic on that: the tone of the vox pops seems to have changed.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4496171.ece
To be fair, Tsipras came to power offering the Greeks the Eurozone free of austerity. It was something he could never deliver. He will probably pay a big price at the ballot box.
Farron 58% Lamb 42%
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=4761a1f83089fd89eba4fef19&id=f798ff7471&e=[UNIQID]
Some of these large charities are ripe for a big shakedown.
This was a LD Newswire poll of members taken over that period weighted for gender, hustings attendance and whether members joined before or after the election. Scroll down for further details
It is possible, perhaps even likely, that eventually Grexit would have led to a better outcome, but in the short- to medium-term it might have been even more painful. And what is certainly the case is that a chaotic and unplanned Grexit, especially one begun after months of mounting crisis and with the banking system already in meltdown, was pretty much the worst of all worlds.
Regardless of your opinions of the man, some of the revelations defy comprehension. A must-read for anyone interested in what's gone on behind the scenes in the Greek crisis since the beginning of the year.
http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/07/yanis-varoufakis-full-transcript-our-battle-save-greece
The mistakes of 1918-1919 were not repeated after 1945. Firstly, Germany was occupied by foreign powers. Secondly, it was partitioned between them in the medium term. The rest is detail.
shows quite a moving attachment to both Europe and the Euro - let's hope that it proves rewarding in the end. Sure. But political debate is 90% dominated by the party battle, as you can see here every day - what is the proprtion of pro/anti-SNP posts to posts seriously discussing the future of Scotland? Even as an MP I was a bit less partisan than most. Yes, there's something in that. in the Commons, you can get serious, constructive discussion in precisely inverse proportion to the level of publicity. In a 1-1 talk with an opposing MP you can have a really good discussion on what needs to be done. In an obscure committee it's also not bad (the European scrutiny committees were in many ways the best, apart from the Select Committees). At the other extreme you get the highly-publicised crap at PMQs.
Obviously there's scope for disagreement on fundamentals - how far should we help or dictate to people who fail to get a job, for instance, bearing in mind the range of reasons from absolutely bad luck to real skiving. But a lot of policy, like prisons or transport or care service delivery, isn't especially about fundamentals, and you get effective discussions on them - e.g. Graham Allen (Nottingham N Labour) works constructively with IDS on finding effective ways to help pre-school kids in deprived areas, because IDS is genuinely concerned and Nottingham N is by some measure the most deprived in Britain.
Had the Conservatives won outright a GB called election in 2007 (a big ask) then I think it would have been repealed outright. But, given the passage of time and failure to continuously campaign on the futility of the law, the latter has now taken over as the prejudices of foxhunting's opponents are now clearly established in the public's mind.
This is probably the best that can be hoped for.
These days I'm more agnostic on the subject.
What the interwar period showed was that it is very hard indeed to get heavy debt repayments out of a country if that country is determined to resist paying and happy to commit economic self-harm in the process. Only through occupation and administration of a given country in the interests of its creditors, or through the effective seizure of assets, can you be sure of getting the money.
After WWI Germany could and should have been occupied for 10-15 years to allow the Allies to extract their perfectly justified reparations.
This logic is now being turned on Greece. Its finances are now going to be largely run by its creditors, with a massive effective asset seizure as collateral. I think most people might agree Greece is less deserving of this kind of treatment than Germany after WWI though.
Cheers for that answer, Mr. Eagles.
If I didn't know better I'd say Mr. Smithson was unimpressed by Burnham.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/europe/2008-03-02/us-and-them
Unfortunately in the former Yugoslavia and Soviet Union we made the same mistake and denied the fundamental need people have to govern themselves. The EU is another retrograde step in this direction.
The Greeks are the authors (along with others) the author of their own misfortune. They want the euro without any of the responsibilities that the euro brings.
What is now resulting is what happens when all sides want impossible and incompatible outcomes. I expect there will be more Greek crises to come.
For instance, why would border control staff bother to enforce any of the rules on migrants/asylum seekers if their pension and wages have been cut in half. Cue - more migrants including, no doubt, a lot of Islamist undesirables, entering Europe via Greece. Cue more wailing.
It would have been better not to have started from here, of course. But there we are: the europhiles are getting what they wanted.......
It used to be that the big charities were staffed by recent graduates happy to work for a couple of years at low wages in their early 20s, a few semi retired and middle-class non-working wives. Maybe a small group of paid execs running the national show on monest incomes.
Nowadays we see charities with 'Communications Director" and "Political Director" roles paying six figure salaries, while the amount of charitable work done seems to decline in favour of lobbying government.
new thread
As someone with a general interest in animal welfare issues, I did feel it was a pity that the whole area got bogged down in this particular trench war, while areas affecting far more animals got neglected. It was partly with that in mind that I took a job working on the animal experiments issue after I lost my seat.
But I think the Tories will be nuts if they reopen the issue, all the same.